Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Clelland.]

Steel Industry

Mr. Denis MacShane: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for granting me this debate. It is the first debate on steel since I was elected Member of Parliament for Rotherham four years ago to represent that great steel-producing centre in Europe. May I quickly declare an interest? I have 25 shares in British Steel, the dividends from which hardly pay for a "happy meal" for one of my children. I also have a close continuing relationship with the lion and Steel Trades Confederation, both locally and nationally, which I value.
Before I begin, I wish to make a point that is relevant to the debate. An extraordinary report appears in today's Yorkshire Post, which says:
The Governor of the Bank of England, Eddie George, said that northern job cuts may be necessary. 'I suppose', he said, `that unemployment in the north was an acceptable price to pay for curbing inflation in the south.'
That statement exposes the fallacy of having our economy controlled and determined by the values of the City. Mr. George may have been misquoted. If so, he must clarify what he said, but if he sticks by that statement, he should apologise. If he continues to say that the people of the north of England are ready to be sacrificed to guard his interests, he should join them and resign.
Let me return to the subject of this debate. I am pleased to see so many hon. Members in their seats. I am delighted that, when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), was named to head that great Department, he said that he wanted to be known as the Secretary of State for Industry. Today he will get the chance to prove that he is a friend of industry, because I am sure that my very good friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry, will respond positively to the propositions that I and others will put to him in this debate.
Steel is now asking for the same interdepartmental attention that coal has received in the past 18 months. Despite its problems, the UK steel industry is a success. It earns £4 billion a year in exports, which have risen fivefold in the past 15 years. It earns far more than the film or music industries. Much as I welcome the new jobs in culture and leisure, we ignore the mega-money made by steel at our peril. The industry's record of industrial relations is second to none—except at the unhappy Co Steel plant in Sheerness, where the treatment of workers is a disgrace by international, let alone British, standards. The giant mastodon of British Steel, which

controls more than four fifths of UK output, operates alongside relative newcomers like Ispat and Caparo, which work fruitfully with the unions.
Times are hard now, but since 1996 British Steel has made nearly £2 billion in profit. Thus, if, as the Secretary of State said in America last week, he wants to invest in clusters of economic success, and wants to back British-based and British-managed companies, and the entrepreneurship that we see in newcomers on the scene, which together earn far more for the UK than the "Full Monty" or the Spice Girls, I appeal to him to give the UK steel industry his full backing. It needs it, because it faces problems that are not, for the most part, of its OWN making. The problems at Longbridge announced today will exacerbate those difficulties. A rod mill has just closed in my constituency, and the highly successful, flexible and profitable Avesta stainless steel mill faces closure next door in Sheffield.
In the first eight months of this year, crude steel production rose by 5 per cent. in Germany and France, 4 per cent. in Italy, and 15 per cent. in Spain, but went down by 2 per cent. in Britain. Blast furnaces are being shut down; rotas are being changed; and men are being asked to work family-destroying hours and shifts to avoid employing new people. Not a steel worker in Britain, from chief executive to newly appointed apprentice, can feel 100 per cent. secure for his future.
Nearly all those problems are directly inherited from the previous Government. The Conservative party left time bombs ticking in the manufacturing economy, and it is Labour's job to seek to defuse them before long-lasting damage is done. The first time bomb is the anti-manufacturing culture, which permeated Britain throughout the 1980s and this decade. The second is the yo-yoing pound sterling—high under Lords Lawson and Lamont; low for a while under the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). It went up again in 1996 and 1997, steadily rising higher and higher to cause the damage that is now being wrought on the steel industry, as he refused to take action to control his pointless pre-election boom. Now the pound is coming down again, but who knows what the value of yo-yo sterling will be in three, six, 12 or 24 months?
The third time bomb is Conservative isolationist hostility to Europe at the cost of any influence that the United Kingdom needs to have over decisions taken jointly with our European partners which impact on our steel industry. The fourth is an anti-manufacturing system of electricity pricing so perverse that Conservative Ministers could not have done a better job had they deliberately designed it to damage the steel industry. The fifth time bomb is the blind worship of unmanaged trade flows, whether in capital or goods, which has led to the present crisis of the world economy.
The sixth time bomb is the view that privatisation plus deregulation plus globalisation was a new magic formula that would solve all economic problems. If someone called a firm a plc and had it quote on Wall street or the stock exchange in London, that alone was thought to be sufficient to ensure success.
Let us take these Tory follies one by one, and consider what needs to be done. The most important change is to put into reverse the anti-manufacturing culture of the Conservative era. Steel has been, is and always will be


cyclical. It requires long lead times for investment and production and for securing markets and sales. The chronic instability of the pound sterling is one root cause of the industry's problems.
The United States, Germany, the Netherlands and other European countries with successful steel industries all operate with interest rates set by independent central banks. The pound yo-yoed even more violently before May 1997 than it does today. Steel will continue to suffer until we form a linkage with the euro.

Mr. Alan Clark: I am listening with great interest and considerable sympathy to the case that the hon. Gentleman is making, but much of his argument in fraudulent. He refers to the fluctuating rate of sterling and compares the industry's performance with that of the United States and of Germany. Over that period, the deutschmark and the US dollar had even higher levels of fluctuation than the pound sterling.

Mr. MacShane: If the right hon. Gentleman examines the flows of the dollar, up and down, since the 1986 Plaza accord, he will find that it has been relatively stable. The deutschmark, certainly in the past 10 years, has been a well-managed currency. I do not want to enter into pro and anti-economic and monetary union arguments, but simply want to place on record my view that, until we have currency stability, and until we are a full economic player in Europe, we should not expect steel to do well.
I appeal to the industry to use its resources to give a kick up the pants of British business, so that it drops its vestal virgin blushes and campaigns publicly, loudly, forcefully and cheerfully for the view that our isolation from EMU cannot last much longer if manufacturing is to survive and thrive. On that point, I must give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Llew Smith: Although I obviously support my hon. Friend's demand for the sacking of Eddie George, what is far more important is the fact that, on almost our first day in power, we handed power over interest rates to a group of unelected and unaccountable bankers. All this morning's rhetoric and all the words of the Chancellor cannot alter the level of interest rates. If we learn something from this, surely it must be that interest rates must go back under political control. Democratically elected Governments could then take decisions affecting the industry and the community, which depend on them.

Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend makes his point forcibly. There is no suggestion that deciding interest rates politically in the Treasury, before May 1997, was of any help to the United Kingdom economy. Interest rates do not become a political football in the countries where steel operates successfully.
I welcome the new Labour Government extending the hand of friendship to our European partners, which is paying off in terms of the directive on end-of-life vehicles. That is not a reference to former Conservative Members of Parliament. Concerted efforts by the Minister, to whom I pay tribute, his officials, Members of the European Parliament such as David Bowe and Linda McAvan, and

the industry's experts are producing a good result for Britain's engineering steel makers. What a contrast that is to the anti-European antics of the main opposition party, which ensured that the United Kingdom steel industry had no voice or friends in Europe.
The Minister has been helpful on Europe, but I want him to be helpful on the cost of energy, which is so loaded against steel makers in Britain.

Helen Jackson: Before my hon. Friend moves on to energy prices, and while he is praising the special engineering steel sector, does he recognise what is not often said in the Chamber and elsewhere—that that sector is one of the most environmentally pure of all manufacturing sectors? Recycling is total: without the special engineering steel sector, this country would have to dispose of all its scrap elsewhere. That must be balanced when we talk about the energy and environmental costs of the steel industry.

Mr. MacShane: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who is a great expert on these matters. I sometimes wish that Britain's steel factories were painted bright green to send out a message that, despite the smokestack image, they constitute one of the most eco-friendly industries in our economy.
I ask the Minister to be helpful on energy. It is often said that electricity prices in Britain are a bit like the 19th century Schleswig-Holstein question, of which, hon. Members will recall, Lord Palmerston said only three people in the world understood it: one was dead, one was mad, and he himself had forgotten. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Minister is dead, he has not yet been driven mad by the burden of office, and I hope that he has not forgotten the importance of the problem, but understands that the corrupt, fixed, rigged electricity market that we inherited from the Tories does such damage to steel, and why it needs reform.
The facts are hardly known to the general public. Although it now takes 40 per cent. less energy to produce a tonne of steel than in 1970, which backs up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), British steel firms pay far more for electricity—often 25 to 30 per cent. More—than their competitors in mainland Europe.
Remember: although the United Kingdom has more natural energy resources than any other European Union country, our prices are the highest. In 1997–98, the price of electricity charged to the industry rose by 20 per cent., despite fuel costs falling on the world and local markets. That meant that the revenues of the dominant generators—National Power, PowerGen and Eastern—rose by about £590 million, which is more than the £576 million that they paid in windfall tax.
I cannot believe that the Chancellor intended that, in effect, steel and other industrial customers would pay for his windfall tax because of the excessively high prices that the regulator lets the generators charge. I stress that this is not a free-market operation; nor do the rules of competition come into play. This is another anti-manufacturing racket inherited from the previous Government.
The Minister has announced a review, but its outcome is unlikely to be known much before the millennium, by which time steel will have suffered further cuts and job


losses. If the regulator continues to allow the electricity generators their profiteering on the backs of steel, there will be a much smaller customer base when the review is finished.
I urge the Minister to take steps to institute a temporary cap on the electricity oligopoly's price racket.

Mr. Tim Boswell: I do not want to disturb the flow of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does he think that the current moratorium on gas-fired power station consent is contributing to a rise in, or the sustaining of, the electricity price level, or helping to reduce it in the way that he wants?

Mr. MacShane: I firmly believe that the Government can take action to institute a temporary cap. Rather than waiting for the millennium dome to open its doors and the electricity price review to be published, I urge the Minister to respond to that. To refer and defer to the regulator is not enough. The Deputy Prime Minister has shown leadership on the matter of the rail regulator, and on rail travel prices. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should this week do no less to ensure fair play for the steel industry.
The Department could also take steps to prevent the unfair dumping of steel products in the United Kingdom and other European Union countries. At the moment, we have the absurd sight of a significant surge in steel imports—which are up by 81 per cent. this year—into the UK and the EU from Serbia. In the morning, Slobodan Milosevic's steel factories produce steel for his tanks and guns to oppress the people of Kosovo; in the afternoon, they produce steel to put British steel workers out of their jobs, and earn hard currency in this country.
That is an EU-wide problem. Steel imports from third countries into the European Union have gone up from 40,000 tonnes a month in the first half of 1997 to almost 300,000 tonnes a month so far this year. We cannot have a 700 per cent. increase in steel imports in under 12 months and call that fair or free trade.
Hon. Members with whom I have debated will know that I am, by conviction, a free trader. I have stood my ground on that policy against many in my party whose first instincts are more protectionist. Such a surge is not due to the temporary flow of a newly fashionable toy—yo-yos from China, garments or electronic games—but will permanently damage the United Kingdom. We must join our partners in Europe and insist that dumping and unfair trade practices are swiftly investigated, and that quick action is taken.
The United States has already shown a lead. We should not increase our dole queues for the sake of an ideology that only the UK believes in, while the rest of the world moves on, or the dumpers move in and take over our markets.

Mr. Barry Jones: There are problems in the steel industry in Wales. My constituents at Shotton steel works face redundancies. They have asked me to emphasise that they want help on energy prices and on the dumping of steel in Britain.

Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose work on behalf of steel workers not just in Wales

but throughout the United Kingdom is well known. His points are well made, and I hope that the Minister will take them on board.
We need action on dumping. If we are tough enough to say "no entry" to a score or so of Slovakian gipsies fleeing hard and cruel times in their own country, we should be manly enough to say "whoa" or "slow down" to the scores of thousands of tonnes of steel that are causing hard and cruel times for steel workers in South Yorkshire.
That leads me to what is, in some ways, the worst of the Conservative inheritance: the slavish view that the only model is that based on shareholder value, in which consumers, employees and communities take second, third or no place at all. The tyranny of quarterly outturns and half-yearly dividend payments is a straitjacket from which British Steel should liberate itself. When the company can spend—as it did last year—£140 million buying its own shares in a fruitless stock market manoeuvre, something is wrong with its priorities. That is almost half as much as the entire UK steel industry invests in a good year.
Investment in Indonesia has melted away, as anyone who knew about the lack of democracy and the corruption in that country could have told British Steel. All that money would have been better spent on investment in the United Kingdom, or on securing a footprint in Euroland, because the proposed investment in Katowice in Poland cannot replace a serious engagement with the main markets in Europe.
Perhaps some in the steel industry believe that privatisation plus share options has meant the end of a relationship with Government. However, every day, every hour and every minute, we receive briefings from British Steel and other companies and the UK Steel Association—for which we are grateful, because we work as a team with the industry—requesting us to knock on the door of Government to ask for help on trade, energy prices, sterling, dumping and the other factors that no steel company can control but which control steel's fate. The steel industry is asking for a new partnership with Government, and I hope that they, through the Minister, will respond positively.
That requires a new approach to partnership right throughout the industry. Partnership means the full and timely sharing of information, which was not the case in Avesta in Sheffield, where the employees and their unions of the British Steel subsidiary company in Sweden were treated more equally, in the Orwellian sense, than those in South Yorkshire.
I hear too many stories in the industry of agreements not being fully honoured and of threats rather than co-operation. I do not believe that they are merely grumpy anecdotes of the dissatisfied. I urge all in the UK steel industry, and British Steel in particular, to ask themselves whether the time has not come to place trust and full information sharing from top to bottom as a priority in the industry in the hard times ahead.

Mr. Phil Hope: Unfortunately, Corby no longer makes steel, thanks to the efforts of the Conservative party. We still manufacture high-quality tubes in Corby, for home and export. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that British Steel owes much of its success to the skills and motivation of the work force, despite the travails of the Conservative Government? Given the


partnership between the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, employers and the Government, we should look forward to investment in the industry, in people and in training as the key to the success of the steel industry in the future.

Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I hope that it is taken on board.
The steel industry faces a rocky period. Orders are down, and prices are 20 per cent. lower than a year ago and falling. Jobs will go. I appeal to the Minister to release funds under his control, or under his guidance through the RESIDER programme, to Steel Partnership, one of the training bodies in Rotherham, which seeks to ensure that, when people lose their jobs, they do not lose their skills, their aptitude for work and their self-confidence.
I do not want to be over-gloomy. Since the days of Vulcan, steel making has involved the more awesome alchemy of transforming raw materials through the crafts and skills of the men to which my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) referred.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his own points. I am taking up quite a lot of time.
In any steel plant today, the heat, light and raw power are the same as they were 2,000 years ago. Steel is a continuing part of the manufacturing base of any civilised country. We allow our steel industry to decline further at our peril. The managers, technologists and workers of Britain's steel industry can and will survive. I have outlined how Government can help, but both sides of industry and the steel communities have a part to play.
I suggest that the time is right for a national round table on steel, to allow all those with a stake in the industry to meet and to put their cards on the table. I am not talking about negotiations, corporatist encounters, tripartism or any of the ancient formulas. Instead, I propose a new way—my hon. Friends may call it a third way, and Opposition Members may call it the British way if they have read the Chancellor's recent speeches. It is a new way that allows us all to see what needs to be done, what needs to be changed, what needs to be offered and what needs to be conceded to secure a bright future for an industry that I firmly believe is part of tomorrow's Britain.

Mr. Richard Allan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) for raising this subject. I firmly agree with his initial comments. Jobs in the north are vital, and if we tilt the economy any further towards the south-east, we shall be heading for disaster. That will affect people not only in the north, but in the south-east as the pressures there become unbearable.
Sheffield now produces more steel than it has ever produced. We have had great success in projecting a new image through entertainment and the service industry. "The Full Monty" and other forms of entertainment have

been tremendously successful—so much so that, when I make an after-dinner speech, rather than expecting me to talk about industry, people want me to take my clothes off, as they think that that is what men from Sheffield do these days. This august Chamber is safe from any such Sheffield-like behaviour.
With our friends in Rotherham, we remain a world-class centre of excellence in the manufacturing and processing of steel, despite our shiny new image as a city of fun. It is essential that we get the European context right, particularly the impact of European monetary union. From next year, the euro will propagate through the supply chain. Businesses such as steel, which trade heavily in other European countries, will, whether they like it or not, find that the euro is an essential fact of their business life. The Government's attitude to the euro, and to economic and monetary union, will be vital in securing the interests of all businesses that trade heavily with Europe. Whatever the politics involved, there is a strong business case for close engagement with Europe in this context.
That is particularly relevant in areas such as mine, where many companies are Anglo-Swedish. We are likely to have one component of a company in the Euro-zone, and another outside it. That will mean some complex economics, and, again, the Government's attitude will give the management of those Swedish companies a strong signal as to how Britain intends to proceed. It will make a significant difference to their investment decisions, determining whether they buy new plant in Sweden or—as I hope—in Sheffield and other British cities.
The second issue that I want to raise is that of electricity prices, which the hon. Member for Rotherham rightly mentioned. As he pointed out, the pool system is an oligopoly for three large generators. The signs are not good for reform. The gas market has moved on—gas prices at the wholesale level have fallen—but legislative time is not being given for the establishment of a new electricity structure that would allow the abolition of the pool system.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. John Battle): Having dedicated about a third of my life to reforming the pool system, I must point out that we said in opposition that we would challenge it, when others said that it was too arcane even to be looked at. One of the first tasks that I undertook in government was that of asking the regulator to present proposals, which he did. Only two weeks ago, we announced that we would take the regulator's recommendations as the basis for a full and radical overhaul of the pool.
We are talking about the wholesale market for electricity. We cannot simply abolish the system, as some have suggested; if we did, no power stations would operate, and there would be no electricity at all. The project is well under way—there is no holding back—but there is no doubt that it is complex.

Mr. Allan: I am pleased to note the Minister's passion, which suggests that we may see changes in the near future. I hear voices saying that the pool system urgently needs reform, and I am glad to learn that reform is on its way.
A third issue is investment in research and technology. Sheffield contains two fine universities, the university of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam university. Both are able


to supply our industry, including the steel industry, with a competitive edge by providing the skills and research that are needed for the development of new products that will set us ahead of our competitors. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government are committed, on a cross-departmental level, to ensuring that our educational institutions can link with industry and provide it with the support it needs.
I believe that I heard on the radio this morning—it may have been a fantasy, as I was lying in bed at the time—confirmation that the university for industry would be in Sheffield. I know that it is not the Minister's departmental responsibility, but if that is so, it is very encouraging. The university for industry and similar initiatives are vital to the achievement of a competitive steel industry, without which—however much we invest—we are unlikely to succeed.
I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Government are committed to investing in excellence in manufacturing, because that is what we have in Sheffield and Rotherham. I hope that my constituents, and all the people of Sheffield, will be able to feel some confidence that progress is being made, and that the importance of the issues that we have discussed today has been recognised. I know that the Minister feels passionately about those issues, and I look forward to hearing him announce initiatives similar to the university for industry, such as the reform of pool prices that we so desperately need.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on his excellent speech, and thank him for the opportunity to speak—especially as I, too, had made a bid for an Adjournment debate.
I want to talk about Co Steel, a Canadian-owned company in Sheerness, in my constituency, and to describe the way in which decent men are being bullied and harassed by its management. I want to know from the Minister, and from the Department of Trade and Industry, about the current thinking in relation to our fairness at work strategies, and whether any of those proposals will alter the scenario that I am about to relate.
First, let me make a confession. My mother, Peggy, is a proud Canadian, as is my sister, and as was my late brother. They would not be best pleased by the tale that I am about to tell. The Canadian high commissioner took it on himself to visit the plant last week, and gave all the wrong signals. He let his country down.
Co Steel in Sheerness is for sale. The Toronto-based company is having problems of its own, stretching back to a bond issue that was withdrawn a couple of years ago, and a joint venture in a new mill whose price has escalated. Some 550 jobs are at risk: the community will be devastated.
Two years ago, Joe Davey, who had worked at Co Steel for 25 years, was sacked a few days before Christmas. Joe had been an active trade unionist for all his time at the company. In 1992, Co Steel became a union-free shop. Although substantial union work is being undertaken at Co Steel through the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union and the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, unions are banned.
Joe Davey—with the admirable support of his union, the ISTC—took Co Steel to the industrial tribunal at Ashford. Here are some of its findings. On senior management at Co Steel, it stated:
We find some witnesses we regarded as essentially unreliable.
On the personnel manager, Dr. Hugh Billot, it stated:
Having heard the lengthy evidence in this case, it seems to us that Dr. Billot is being disingenuous. The company may not have been collectively hostile to trade unions, but there is no doubt that Dr. Billot himself was hostile, and that his view of the unions informed the company's approach.
To make the sale of Co Steel more attractive, over the last month there have been 45 so-called voluntary redundancies and—surprise, surprise—19 wholesale redundancies. Let me read some of the letters that are being sent to me over the past few weeks. One correspondent wrote:
I had an industrial accident at Co Steel. I used holidays so as not to penalise on the existing points scheme that is enforced at Co Steel. I eventually had an operation on my back. I was made redundant.
I have had other letters, from decent citizens in my constituency. One reads:
I am one of those made redundant. Co Steel has given the excuse of work behaviour and performance for my redundancy. What I should like to know is, after 20 or so years of loyal service, why they have decided that my behaviour and performance is not up to standard. It is possible that it is because I am a union member. If it is so that Co Steel needed to lose 60 members of staff, why were only 21 accepted for early retirement, and of those why were so many union members?
Another letter reads:
As you know, the company derecognised the unions in April 1992, so why is it that we have been made redundant? Why have we been refused union recognition?
Another reads:
You may already be aware of the despicable treatment of a number of men made redundant by the personnel director at Co Steel. As an active trade unionist, it is no surprise to find myself on the list.
And so on, and so on.
My concerns are these. Some of the Co Steel management is a disgrace. Two of its senior staff were economical with the truth at a tribunal, but they were neither fined nor fired. Good working practices are important for all staff, not just the men and women on the shop floor. How will "fairness at work" ensure that, when management misbehaves, it is fined? I await the Minister's comments with interest.
Co Steel may find a new owner. I am reliably informed by one of the potential buyers that the sale document has more holes than the average colander. We need a buyer, but they are thin on the ground. I hope that, when the white knight arrives, he will make a charge against Co Steel's senior management.

Mr. David Prior: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) will know that I worked for British Steel during much of the 1980s. I must say that I found many of his comments utterly misleading.

Mr. MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House in what capacity he worked at British Steel? I do not recall meeting him on the shop floor.

Mr. Prior: My last job at British Steel was that of commercial director.
In 1979, British Steel was completely uncompetitive. It had rotten industrial relations, and its products were of poor quality. By the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, it had been transformed into the most competitive steel company in the world. The hon. Gentleman ought to pay tribute to those who worked at British Steel, and to remember that that success was achieved under three successive Conservative Governments.
I am going to be brief, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak. There are three areas where the Government could do something tangible to help British Steel. The first is interest rates. I heard the hon. Member for Rotherham talking about the damage that exchange rate volatility can do to a company such as British Steel. I share some of those concerns, but, by pursuing high interest rates and giving independence to the Bank of England, his Government have increased the value of our currency above it should be. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not good enough for his Government to disclaim responsibility for interest rates.
The second area where the Government can help is in a review of the pool. The pool works quite well for individual consumers, but clearly does not give the benefits it should to high energy users. British Steel is paying 15 or 20 per cent. more for its energy than its competitors in Europe. I hope that the Minister will introduce more competition into the pool. His policy of having a moratorium on gas-fired stations is wrong. We need more competition in energy generation.
The third way in which the Government can do something tangible is anti-dumping. As the hon. Member for Rotherham pointed out, imports into Europe as a whole are some seven times what they were last year. That is having a damaging impact not just on British Steel, but on other European users. I hope that the Minister will take urgent, quick action to bring in anti-dumping measures.
There was a period during the 1980s when it became fashionable to say that manufacturing did not matter. That was a very short period, but it did become fashionable. It is particularly sad that, under this Government, that attitude seems to be getting out again—that services matter, that somehow manufacturing does not matter, and to hell with British manufacturing.

Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman might check how many times we have campaigned for, mentioned and highlighted the importance and vitality of manufacturing, compared with Lord Young, who said that manufacturing did not matter: let people in the manufacturing city of Leeds, my city, eat out, he suggested. We have changed that culture already.

Mr. Prior: It is wrong for a Minister to say that, when manufacturing industry faces a severe recession. This is a recession that we cannot blame just on world markets and

overseas events. This is largely a recession that has been manufactured by economic incompetence in your Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. It is not my Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use correct parliamentary language.

Mr. Prior: Yes.

Mr. Frank Roy: Like the hon. Gentleman, I worked for British Steel in the 1970s and 1980s. In fact, I was still there in 1991, and I have to say that I never met him on the shop floor when I was in the melting shop working on the ladles. However, I am glad to hear him say that the Government were saying, "To hell with manufacturing." What would he have told my constituents when they were told in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s by his Government, "To hell with manufacturing and the steel industry in the Motherwell area"?

Mr. Prior: I should like to conclude by saying that British Steel is a fine business. It is very competitive. It can hold its head up high throughout the world. It depends totally on a successful manufacturing base in this country, with a strong customer base. Manufacturing needs some help, and the Government are not giving it.

Ms Joan Walley: We have had a colourful, powerful, upbeat and far-ranging speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). I congratulate him on securing the debate, but it is important that all of us who have steel capacity in our localities be part of the new deal that he is now asking the Government to enter with British Steel. I speak just to put the case that, in north Staffordshire, we want to be part of that new deal for steel.
I think it was four years ago—time flies so quickly in this place—that we had a real problem about increased capacity in Ireland, which had an extra subsidy. That issue was fought over in the House. It was crucial at that stage that we did everything we could to safeguard the capacity of British Steel to carry on manufacturing.
Members of Parliament in north Staffordshire played a leading role in that. We got the overall capacity from elsewhere reduced. In that process, we maintained a part of British capacity. That was crucial. My reason for speaking now is to say that there have been huge improvements in British Steel manufacturing since then, but we do not want to lose it.
In relation to the global economy, we are in a particularly vulnerable position. That is why it is so important that all of us here who care about steel in our constituencies give that message to the Minister with responsibility for industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), so that he knows that he has the support of all of us in the new deal that I hope he will be able to secure for steel.
This is not just about the economy or industry, but about the environment, the negotiations that are about to start post-Kyoto, the changes that are taking place to utility regulation and the price of energy for intensive


users of energy; therefore, through this debate, I want us to put all those issues on the table, so that we can continue to make the case for manufacturing in our constituencies.
We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham about job losses at the Templeborough rolling mills. Every time we hear about job losses in British Steel, or are told that there are going to be more job losses because of the particular stage of the cycle that we are in, I get worried about potential job losses in north Staffordshire.
I want the Government and British Steel to know that, between us, we will do everything to safeguard one of the best producing sites we have. I am talking, of course, about the British Steel Shelton site. It is producing 400,000 tonnes of steel per year. It has been doing that for the past five years, and is on target to produce the same amount this year.
British Steel contributes 39,000 jobs throughout the United Kingdom. Obviously, the Shelton site is crucial to that. We have had investment from British Steel in Shelton. We have a new operating pulpit investment of £600,000. We are commissioning new marking and labelling machines to give the edge on customer service and control systems. There is also in progress an overall refurbishment of £1 million.
Five years ago, we had a work force of around 400. Two years ago, we had a work force of 350, and currently we have a work force of 330. We want to keep that work force on that site.
I pay tribute to the huge effort by the work force at Shelton in terms of team working, multi-skilling and work flexibility, all done with trade union agreement. The output in Shelton is second to none. As I hear hon. Members warning about the chill winds of the global recession and everything else, I want to safeguard those jobs in north Staffordshire, so that we can reward the enormous efforts by the team of dedicated workers there, bearing it in mind that we are an island site and, as a result, are particularly vulnerable to any additional pressures; such as the extra costs of transport are so great.
I use this debate to remind British Steel and the government of all that. People in north Staffordshire are important. I use it to remind them of the part that we placed in the last battle, if you like, to maintain British Ste capacity.
I ch on what my hon. Friend the Member for Rotheam said about the Governor of the Bank of England. The Minister will know, because he came to north Staffordshire only last month, how much the pottery industry in north Staffordshire relies on exports, and how important it is that we are innovative and make an upbeat contribution, but the same applies to steel production.
If we bear it in mind that about 50 per cent. of British Steel production is exported and, of the remaining 50 per cent., a further 50 per cent. is exported, and we see what has happened to the Asian market and the collapse there, it is clear that there are difficulties and bumpy rides ahead. For that reason, I say to Eddie George, Governor of the Bank of England, "You cannot sacrifice manufacturing industry just for the service economy." Manufacturing is important. We make things in north Staffordshire, and we are proud of those things. The crucial point is that we do not want to be sacrificed for the wider economy.
We are now at a critical stage, and I wanted to emphasise the importance of our manufactured goods, and of developing the partnership necessary to deal not only

with environmental issues but with the international economy, so that we can ensure that British Steel workers in north Staffordshire, at the Shelton site, have a real future.

Mr. Alan Clark: This debate has provided a very good demonstration of the importance of our Wednesday morning Adjournment debates—which allow hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), to cite and bring to the House's attention monstrous cases of victimisation. It is an excellent thing that such issues should be raised in the Chamber.
Today's debate has also allowed the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) to deal with an absolutely fundamental dilemma of economic policy that we find ourselves at liberty to digress upon all too seldom. In much of what he said, powerful argument was heavily interspersed with obligatory party political points and a good deal of confusion and hot air.

Mr. MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with some expertise on that.

Mr. Clark: Although many of us pride ourselves on that gift, hon. Members—Labour Members, too—have to try to cut through it.
The hon. Member for Rotherham rightly drew attention to the scandal of the Governor of the Bank of England saying that we must tolerate unemployment in the manufacturing sector in order to control or moderate overheating in the service sector. I have foreshortened the Governor's argument, which is a familiar one—he was not the first person to articulate it. Greatly to the shame of the Conservative party, Conservative Members have in the past made the same case. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Lord Young, under whom I worked as a junior Minister. I drove that Department's officials mad by arguing the unfashionable case of protectionism, against the views of my own Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for Rotherham also drew the House's attention to the fact that, although the Government have been in power for more than 18 months, they are, if anything, more in thrall now to the multinationals, the supranationals and the supermarkets, and to their friends in industry who are buying titles and subscribing to funds, than they were at the outset. They are certainly far more in thrall to them now than they were when they published the Labour party manifesto before the general election.
It is no good saying that many of the seeds of damage were sown by the previous Government. The Labour party has been in power for more than 18 months, and it has intensified the close allegiance between the rip-off corporations and the Government, whose paymasters they are slowly becoming.
The hon. Member for Rotherham dodged the main point. Although he made his case, which sounded fine, he would not arrive at his conclusion. He would not admit that no economy, least of all ours, is strong enough to pay both unemployment benefit to its own workers and the wages of manufacturing work forces in other countries that are dumping their products in the United Kingdom. Although he said that we have to be strong enough to resist dumping, he dodged the matters of the general


agreement on tariffs and trade and our associations within the Community. Although he argues—his argument was veiled, but not very closely veiled—that some of our steel industry's problems would be cured if we were in the euro and worked closer with Europe, he knows perfectly well that that argument is utterly fraudulent. If anything, such actions would intensify the problems.
The hon. Gentleman cited the example of Serbian steel being dumped in the United Kingdom. Such dumping provides the House with a classic example of the fact that, because of the damage that they have suffered, many sectors of our manufacturing industry need to be protected. I am one of the few hon. Members on either side of the House who is still not ashamed to argue the archaic but traditional Tory case that we should protect our manufacturing industry by using the various devices of Government—such as subsidy, taxation and import control—that we have used traditionally, and that many of our competitors still use. For some reason, we have had to discard such devices.
I tell Labour Members that we must now realise what is at stake in the argument. Hon. Members, especially Labour Members—with their roots in constituencies that contain what is left of our manufacturing industry—must realise that a major choice will have to be made if, as all judges believe will happen, there is a major contraction in the world economy. The choice will be between the welfare of our constituents as producers and their welfare as consumers.
For too long—for reasons of loyalty, doctrine or laziness—the House has swallowed arguments from Front Benchers on both sides of the House that we must now subscribe to the consumerist ethic, and that the service industries and the ephemeral earnings of show business, with all its shallowness and triviality, will support a major economy of 55 million people. How can such industries support our economy? Although we know that it is impossible for them to support our economy, we allow ourselves time and again to be sold the doctrine that they can.
The choice will have to be made, and the impulse to make it will have to come from within the party in government. I tell Labour Members that I came into the Chamber to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham, whom I respect, and that my speech is entirely unprepared and extempore. Nevertheless, I hope very much that, in the course of time, within the next two years, there will be a real debate on the subject, and that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be able to give it their attention with proper and fully prepared speeches.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Before I speak to the subject of this debate, I should like briefly to mention one example of the steel industry's success in my constituency. Vauxhall Motors has not only just taken on 1,000 new employees but is producing the best selling car in Britain—the new Astra. Vauxhall's success is a credit to the partnership between industry and Government. The situation is therefore not entirely one of doom and gloom, as has been suggested by some hon. Members in this debate.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), I should like to deal with one specific point. I also realise that I shall receive support from various Departments in dealing with some specific problems facing H. H. Robertsons, which closed just before the general election. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), who was then the Department of Trade and Industry Minister with responsibility for competition, under whom an investigation was started by the Department's insolvency service, which subsequently involved the serious fraud squad and police.
The background to the investigation was a £5 million deficit in the work force pension fund and a series of business actions resulting in moneys dripping out of the company, to the detriment of all creditors, especially the pension fund. Regrettably, because of the complexities of the matter and the way in which the Companies Acts are structured, the Serious Fraud Office has been unable to produce a case that it believes would stand up in a fraud trial. I believe that a case has not been made, not because the SFO is happy with events, but because of the very clever way in which the money was used.
The matter is currently being dealt with by the pensions ombudsman. Earlier this week, I had an exchange with the Secretary of State for Social Security on that point.
I should put in context the closure of H. H. Robertsons, which was a very important steel works. Ellesmere Port was a steel manufacturing town, and subsequently has become a petrochemical town. It began producing steel at the turn the century, when the work force of the then Wolverhampton Iron Works walked up the canals to gain jobs at the new plant. The plant survived for the best part of 100 years, but then, after some very interesting financial manoeuvres, it disappeared. That was a tragedy, not only for the town and the people who worked at the plant, but for the credibility of an important part of British industry.
I want to put three points to the Government in the context of the inquiries that must continue. I appreciate that the first is not within the remit of my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry, but I make a general plea to the Government to work with me and with all the parties involved to find a rescue package for the pension fund of the plant. The state is paying a significant sum in benefits, so it would be helpful if we could find a way to rescue the fund.
Secondly, I should like the Government to examine carefully the way in which the Companies Acts have been used in this particular case, and the effects of their structure on the ability of the work force to get a clear picture of what has happened. Even the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), cannot get hold of the full report from the Serious Fraud Office, which is a bizarre state of affairs.
Finally, when the company was taken over—something on which the pension fund members were not consulted—the pension fund was in deficit. Because of the refinancing of the company, pension fund members automatically became lower-ranking creditors than the people who allegedly invested in the company. The exposure of the pension fund increased as a result of the vehicle that was used to refinance the company. That is a ludicrous state of affairs, which can no longer be allowed to occur under British law.
There needs to be a great deal of close co-operation between the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Social Security and the Treasury. I should be extremely grateful if the Minister would reaffirm the Government's commitment to work with me and the ex-employees of the company in an attempt to get justice for them.

Mr. John Healey: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on securing the debate, and on arguing his case so powerfully. He brings a worldwide view to the subject. I cannot compete with that, so I shall not try. Instead, I want to examine the local scene and make a plea to the Minister for practical help in dealing with some of the fallout of the problems that my hon. Friend outlined.
The British Steel Engineering Steels plant in Alwarke is in my constituency, as is the Thrybergh rolling mill. Many constituents also work at Kvaerner and Avesta and in other small steel plants throughout Rotherham and Sheffield. They feel a growing sense of dismay and desperation. They are doing all they can, often led by their union, to help their companies succeed and to become internationally competitive, but the firms are then hit by forces well beyond their control.
Steve Shaw is typical. He lives in Rawmarsh in my constituency, and works at Avesta in Sheffield. He, the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation branch secretary and other colleagues have been heavily involved in work force and management partnerships in the past five years to introduce new shift patterns, new working teams and new levels of productivity and profitability. However, in the summer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said, the firm announced plans to close the mill and move the Sheffield order book to Sweden with the loss of 100 jobs and 100 family incomes.
I regret to say that Avesta is only one of a string of steel companies instituting closures and cuts. Even BSES, a world-class and internationally competitive company, is reducing capacity. However, it is still holding on to its work force, still investing and still looking to the upturn, but the danger lies with downstream companies in South Yorkshire. It lies with the damage that is already in the system but which is still to work through. Supply chains are long, especially in engineering steels.
The local challenge is to do what we can to help people living with the threat of redundancy. In Rotherham, we have pragmatism and resilience, and a proud track record of partnership involving organisations responding to such problems. That has been the root of our recent regeneration efforts, and it is the reason that we want pathfinder area status for Rotherham and the pilot scheme for the new deal for the over-25s.
Although I welcome the efforts of the Minister and his colleagues to set up a rapid response team in the Department of Trade and Industry, and while I applaud the efforts of similar rapid response teams in the borders and in the north-east to deal with large-scale company closures, Rotherham already has such an operation in place. It has an effective partnership to tackle the immediate problems of retraining and resettlement for steel workers who are losing their jobs. It is called Steel Partnership Training, and is based on co-operation nationally between the ISTC, SteelAction and Most

Training. With support from the Rotherham ChamberTec and Rotherham council and, crucially, the Employment Service, it has secured RESIDER funding to pay for training for 100 redundant steel workers and those threatened with redundancy.
We are now looking for a further £45,000 to double the number of people with whom we can deal. That money lies in the RESIDER programme funds, and I urge the Minister to help to fast track our bid to secure that cash because we can then match it from other sources. If we can fast release these funds, action can be taken while workers are still on notice rather than on the dole. If we can secure the funds, in the midst of the maelstrom that is today's global economy, the Government can help individuals whose lives have been overturned by events that are well beyond their control and that of their company.

Mr. Owen Paterson: I heartily congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on bringing this subject to the House on a Wednesday morning, but, having spent my whole life in manufacturing, I must deplore some of his comments about the previous Government.
After I left university and before I entered the House, I spent my time in industry, making things and selling them abroad. There was a revolution in Britain during that time, led by British Steel in particular. It was sad that, when my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) said that he had worked for British Steel, he was laughed at. It was a team effort; surely the old class warfare has gone. We need people with skills on the shop floor, and we need people with my hon. Friend's skills in management—that was why the privatised British Steel was such a success.
The revolution liberated the country from the burdens of a rigged labour market that had the law behind it. Corporate taxation was dramatically reduced, which is a lesson that this Government should not forget, to levels that made it worth while staying in this country and investing here, and which brought the extraordinary tide of inward investment that has led to an extra 1 million firms being created. However, I have only three minutes left, so I shall be brief.
It was extraordinary that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) led an attack on Eddie George, who is in charge of the Bank of England, when he wants to join the euro. If the Chancellor wants to get rid of Eddie George, it is at least in his power to do so. If we joined the euro, we could never get rid of Mr. Duisenberg. We should be just one little voice, one of a dozen.
I find it extraordinary that, after the disaster of the exchange rate mechanism, for which our party has apologised but for which the Labour and Liberal parties have not, the Labour party wishes to put itself in a concrete box when it comes to exchange rates, so that a small, unelected group of people whom we can never remove will decide interest rates and exchange rates that will hit the work force of Rotherham.
The hon. Member for Rotherham cast some aspersions on the framework of shareholder capitalism which has proved successful in the western world, but he did not come up with an alternative.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a Government partnership, but, as far as I could tell, that boiled down to an exchange of information and a plea for funds to help with redundancies. Was he hinting that the Government should take back shareholdings in companies such as British Steel, or that a Government bank should be set up to provide soft loans? What is the Government partnership that the hon. Gentleman was talking about? There was also some knockabout stuff criticising shareholder capitalism, which brought so much prosperity to the western world and whose absence caused so much catastrophe in eastern Europe.
The hon. Member for Rotherham also mentioned unmanaged trade flows, and made some dangerous comments about dumping. Having spent much of my career exporting and importing, I am extremely alarmed by some of the noises being made here today. I include in that the remarks by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), who I know believes in trade blocs.
In the 1920s and 1930s, there was a catastrophic shrinking of world trade by the raising of import barriers. I have spent much of my life battling to open up foreign markets to goods in my industry, with the help of European partners. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will be looking to open up another GATT round? The previous Government played a heroic role in getting important duties reduced around the world, and the Uruguay round was crowned by the establishment of the World Trade Organisation.
The hon. Member for Rotherham was absolutely right to mention Serbian steel, which I expect receives huge Government subsidies. Will the Minister tell us today that Britain will be leading the way in demanding another GATT round?
Finally, on energy, in the relaxed atmosphere of today's Adjournment debate, will the Minister answer the question that I have asked him twice before at Question Time? What leads Government energy policy? Is it the cheapest possible energy which will give the workers of Rotherham a chance to compete in the world, is it his own old commitment to the producer interests and protecting jobs, or is it Kyoto and keeping the world clean? Will the Minister think carefully, and give me a straight answer?

Mr. Tim Boswell: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on securing today's Adjournment debate. We have had a serious and sombre discussion of an important topic, in which hon. Members have brought their particular concerns about the current position of the steel industry to the attention of the House. Behind it, however, stalks the wider agenda of what the Victorians would have called political economy, and those points were interestingly rehearsed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), who takes a very clear view, which I do not share, but which we should consider.
The steel industry is an excellent industry, which has reformed itself out of all recognition, but it is in real difficulties. Despite those difficulties, there is a positive undertow, and a wish on all sides that it should succeed. Although nobody talks now about the commanding

heights of the economy, steel remains extremely important. British Steel alone employs nearly 40,000 people, and, as the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) said, there is a huge downstream, which reaches even into constituencies such as mine, in fabrication, processing and stockholding. So there is a very large multiplier, and the industry remains central to our economy, just as—as I have always believed—manufacturing is a vital part of our economy.
The investment programme is exemplary, representing some £350 million a year for the industry as a whole. It has enabled us to move from commodity steel to specialist steel, while supplying across the range. It has resulted in a much better productivity record than the British average on manufacturing industry. It shows, for example, that the cost of making steel in 1998 is the same as it was in 1990, which is pretty good considering the lapse of time. It shows that exports have increased from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. of output and that we are a world player. British Steel is arguably second, third or fourth in the world, depending on the particular year.
Yet, despite what I readily acknowledge has been achieved by the industry, its employees and its unions, there is a problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior), with his direct experience of the industry, said, had we not privatised the industry, its circumstances would not have enabled it to put its house in order. It continues to do that, as it cannot be a one-off but requires a continuing programme, yet the breakthrough to continuing success eludes it for some other reason embedded in what we have been saying about political economy.
I would quarrel with one or two remarks by the hon. Member for Rotherham. In particular, for new Labour he took an uncharacteristically churlish view of the role of profits and the importance of the share price. Despite the market operation to which he referred, the share price of British Steel has reduced by something like 80 per cent. reducing market capitalisation. If the share price is not buoyant, it will be more difficult to raise capital in future.
So there is an underlying problem, to which a number of hon. Members have referred. I have a fellow feeling with one or two hon. Members on both sides in relation to exchange rate policies, particularly monetary policy. As the hon. Member for Rotherham was speaking—and I did not have the facility to check—I wondered whether he had voted against the Bank of England Act 1998, as I did. I know that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), who are in their places, also voted against it.
Frankly, Labour Members have wished the problem on themselves. They opted for a strict monetary policy, possibly to restrain themselves from the temptations of inflation. That has had direct effects on the exchange rate, which in turn have had direct effects on manufacturing industry, particularly the steel sector. British Steel's briefing, prepared some months ago, said rather eloquently:
No-one disputes that the control of UK inflation by the blunt instrument of six interest rate increases since May 1997"—
one of those has since been rescinded—
has continued to impact with disproportionate severity on Britain's manufacturing sector (where inflationary pressures are, in contrast to much of the services sector, negligible).
There we have it. It has made a huge difference, and has been accompanied by the Chancellor's increases in taxation, his attacks on savings and the impact on


company pension plans that has yet to be fully realised. British Steel spends about £60 million a year on its pension fund. It will not have its new actuarial valuation until next year, but that will impact directly on what has to be provided.
Although the industry is doing well, the exchange rate is fighting and frustrating improvement, making it difficult for the steel industry to trade. When Labour Members say, sometimes from the Front Bench, that some of the exchange rate appreciation took place under the previous Conservative Government, one has to make the point that the bid at the margin has run back in the past couple of months, yet the prospect for manufacturing industry continues to deteriorate. For example, three mills shut recently.
It may not all be the fault of the Government. They cannot be held to blame for the problems in the Korean economy and the flood of steel from Asia. Whether or not it is dumped is a matter for the European authorities to examine. However, we can blame the Government not only for their failures in macroeconomic policy, but for their determination to ratchet up the cost of British industry at a difficult time, making it even less competitive, despite the problems that hon. Members have identified.
Let me single out two issues within my remit and responsibility. The first relates to employment costs, where there is a whole package of measures, including the working time directive, the minimum wage and the fairness at work proposals. One could fairly say that the Government used the engineering industry almost as a template for the introduction of the minimum wage. As they said, not many people pay that little in engineering, but, as we now know, with outsourcing, many other industries feed into the steel sector, both as customers and as suppliers and sources of services to the industry.
The costs that will come through such packages will have an impact not just on the service industries—once memorably called, in another forgotten phrase, the "candy-floss economy"—but on the real world of manufacturing industry.

Mr. Paterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that none of the measures introduced by the Government has made the customers of British Steel in this country more competitive, and that there should be a ban on any further moves that would increase the costs of small businesses?

Mr. Boswell: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend.
The energy sector is important. It is no good saying, "We have got to do Kyoto," without considering the gas industry. The Government have shown that they are not prepared to encourage gas-fired power to help us to meet the Kyoto targets, so further strain will be put on the rest of manufacturing industry, which will be required to cut its emissions. There is a cost and an environmental impact.
As shown by this morning's news about Rover—a major steel user—the alarm bells in manufacturing industry are ringing. The Minister must reassure us that he is not heading straight for the iceberg.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. John Battle): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) for introducing the debate. For anyone

who says that economic debate has left the Chamber, today's example of the use of parliamentary time has been superlative. We have started a debate here. I am delighted that manufacturing is again being debated in the Chamber. I say "again", because I led a debate on manufacturing. One of the commentators on "Question Time" the other night said that my town of Leeds was an old textile town. It is not. Leeds has been in engineering for the whole of the 20th century. That is the key to my constituency and my city.
The Government are committed to manufacturing, engineering and technology. I was asked whether we were committed to investing in excellence in manufacturing. For most of my life, I have been fed up with hearing manufacturing referred to as if it were a 19th-century practice. The technology, innovation, imagination and creativity in British manufacturing belong in the 21st century. We will champion those industries.
I should like to say a positive word about the importance of steel as an economic force in its own right. We have to confront economic pressures and issues related to skills, training, unfair dumping and the reform of the pool to deal with artificially high electricity prices. I want to respond as positively as I can to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham's proposal for a round table.
I do not have time to respond to all the points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) referred to H. H. Robertsons. I know that he has had meetings with Ministers. I shall take that forward in the light of his comments this morning. I shall also look into the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) about "Fairness at Work".
In the past year, I have attended meetings of the group of steel Members of Parliament, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, and visited steel companies. Those meetings, in which the ISTC and Steel Action are often involved, have been positive and helpful in difficult circumstances, and serve as a model of how to proceed.
I should like to keep emphasising that we attach great importance to our manufacturing industry. Some 4 million people work in manufacturing. It is important also because of its innovation, its generation of new technologies and the fact that its output is still one fifth of gross domestic product. Manufacturing is how we will make our future.
I do not want the north to be set against the south—manufacturing against services. We should be looking for integration, accepting that both sectors are vital. I recognise the major role of the steel industry and its products in underpinning almost all manufacturing. Steel is not just a material—it is an economic force.
I should like to mention briefly the development of world-class, lightweight, stronger materials for the automotive industry, including new products such as the ultra-light steel auto body project. Later today, I shall be at the motor show in Birmingham, where I shall visit the British Steel stand to see its contribution to technology, industry and the economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham talked about clusters of economic success. We should focus on them more readily. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and others praised those who work in the industry, who are the reason why


it is one of the cleanest, most innovative and efficient steel industries in the world. In the past 20 years, productivity has risen more than fourfold, while the amount of energy needed to produce a tonne of steel has been reduced by about one third. Our productivity compares favourably with that of Japan and the United States. The steel industry's export performance is still remarkable by any standards.
However, as has rightly been stressed during the debate, we must face economic realities, and recognise that current economic conditions are difficult. The current difficulties in the world economy show the importance of pursuing policies that help us to steer a course of domestic economic stability. The Government are taking action to build a stable economy capable of sustained and steady growth, allowing businesses to move ahead with confidence, in contrast to the boom-and-bust, stop-go economics of the 1980s and early 1990s, when interest rates reached 15 per cent. and more than 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost. It is worth reminding ourselves of that occasionally. We are working hard to sort out the mess that we inherited.
I recognise that the strength of sterling and the financial difficulties in Asia and Russia are causing particular difficulties for manufacturers and exporters, particularly the steel industries. We have to take the long-term view, not let short-term pressures lead us back to the policies that produced the boom and bust of the past. The short-term fixes of the previous Administration did not work. We are laying the foundations for economic growth by putting economic management on to a more stable, long-term footing. We are encouraging investment and productivity growth and helping people from welfare to work, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) said.
Global forecasts are being revised down across the world. One quarter of the world, including Japan, is in recession, and no country is immune from the current instability in the world economy. We must ensure that we do not go back to protectionism, and that world markets are kept open. We need openness and transparency in financial transactions, with proper supervision and regulation.
More positively, we are also addressing the fundamental structural weaknesses that have held the economy back. It is appropriate that the university for industry, which focuses on re-skilling during a person's working life, is to be located in Sheffield. I think that that was announced this morning, and I can confirm it.

I also praise the steel industry's excellent training record. One of the keys to competitiveness is skills training. Intensive investment in training has played a major part in the success of the steel industry. British Steel continues to invest heavily, providing significant amounts of training to ensure that all staff have the necessary skills. The industry was one of the first to have its national training organisation recognised by the Department for Education and Employment when NTOs were introduced in 1997.
British Steel has understood the need for training in a way that other industries have not. It is a model of how to proceed. British Steel has also understood that exporting is not simply a matter of selling products cheaply. Success requires investment in innovation, efficiency and training.
We have to get the framework right. We are working on building partnerships with the steel industry, as with other manufacturers. The agenda includes science, engineering and technology, the spread of innovation, new processes and new ways of doing things, the availability of finance for investment in research and development and the creation of a culture that builds on and uses the new knowledge-driven economies, integrating new technologies and telecommunications as a means of revitalising our manufacturing base.
Our commitment to that partnership includes taking an active part in defending the steel industry from illegal trade practices, unfair competition and illegal subsidies to its competitors. Where such practices are shown to exist, we shall campaign rigorously on behalf of the industry, and will represent it.
As I said in an intervention, we are tackling the wholesale market, which is a complex business. Electricity prices are determined by a pool. We have got on with tackling the matter; we asked the regulator to look at it. He has reported and we have accepted the broad shape of his response. We are pressing the regulator and a team of people on the issue. The regulator has appointed a person radically to overhaul the pool mechanism, to ensure that electricity prices for industry are brought down and it is not priced out by artificially high prices. The industry is, of course, regulated, so capping is a matter for the regulator, whom the Government do not tell directly what to do.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham that the regulator—the director general—is closely monitoring developments. If it appears that prices are rising without good reason, arrangements can be reconsidered. We shall keep an eye on that. On average—I know that it is not fair on the steel industry to say this—price pressure will be downwards.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must turn to the next debate.

Parliament and Politics (BBC Coverage)

11 am

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this subject. I recall that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who opened the previous debate, secured a debate on the BBC's obligations to Parliament on 11 March. It is largely in that context that I shall draw attention to yet another development in the relationship between the BBC and the House.
I suspect that, regardless of whatever else appears on BBC television and radio reports this evening, there will be no report of this debate. The corporation is extremely embarrassed by its failure to fulfil its public service broadcasting commitments to give proper emphasis to Parliament's role in the political life of the nation. In the past few days, I have been subjected to a stream of letters and memoranda—I suspect that other hon. Members have, too—which betray the BBC's embarrassment and defensive posture.
Hon. Members will recall the dumbing down of Radio 4, including the exile of "Today in Parliament", "Yesterday in Parliament" and "The Week in Westminster" to relatively inaccessible times and wavelengths. That was the theme of the debate secured by the hon. Member for Rotherham on 11 March.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I feel that I cannot take part in a second Adjournment debate today, so I beg hon. Members to excuse my absence from a debate on an issue that is dear to me. I support the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Has he seen the remarkable quotation from Miss Polly Toynbee, who said when "Yesterday in Parliament" was booted off "Today" that it was a jolly good thing because everyone was fed up with hearing Members of Parliament on that programme? Now she has recanted and said that "Today" after 8.30 am has become incredibly boring and that please could the voices of distinguished Back Benchers, such as those present—excluding myself—be heard once again. I wish the hon. Gentleman well in his debate.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who is present. I hope that hon. Members have seen his early-day motion on the subject.
The fears that were expressed in March about the treatment of parliamentary proceedings by Radio 4 have been entirely justified. We have already been forewarned that audience figures, which are coming out this week, will show that not only we, but much more importantly, the listeners, think that the BBC was wrong to replace a debate between parliamentarians with some insipid discussion in the studio. That has proved a disaster.
I note with interest that, in pointing out the hits and misses of Radio 4's changes, yesterday's edition of The Independent identified specifically such final-section debates on "Today" between 8.30 and 9 am—when we used to attract a very good audience. Those ratings appear to have collapsed. We shall no doubt hear from Mr. James Boyle later this week about how disastrous his changes have been. If they are as disastrous as has been widely forecast, I hope that, in the best traditions of the corporation, his resignation offer will shortly be on the director general's desk.
Since such events, there has been a further slaughter of the BBC's coverage of the House. At the very end of July, when there were but two days before the summer recess, it announced some further major cuts. Until July, in addition to the political teams located in each distinct part of the United Kingdom, a dedicated journalist worked full time at the Millbank studios to ensure that every relevance of Parliament to each region was identified, reported and explained. Members of all parties—Back Benchers and Front Benchers—benefited from their special knowledge, professionalism and close liaison with our work in this place. Most importantly, listeners and viewers received the service for which they were paying.
On 29 July—immediately before the summer recess—Members of Parliament received a letter from the BBC outlining the proposed changes. The letter stated that the BBC was recruiting
ten political editors, one for each region in England … able to lead the way in person across all our outlets—regional television, local radio and regional text services.
Regional Political Editors will split their time between their regional centres and London, working out of the BBC offices in Millbank, when Parliament is sitting.
We will maintain a team of political journalists to back them up, based full time at Millbank as now, as well as our current local radio political staff in London.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Since my hon. Friend is referring to regions in England, I should like to draw his attention to what is happening in Scotland—which is not, of course, a region. Does he agree that the BBC's reported reluctance to allow Scotland to carry its own 6 o'clock news is contrary to the spirit of devolution and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament next year? Does he agree that that will be seen as a slap in the face for BBC Scotland and its well-produced programmes and quality staff, and will paint the British Broadcasting Corporation as yet another London-based, domineering control machine?

Mr. Tyler: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I come from another Celtic country—although we in Cornwall do not aspire to nationhood in quite the same way—and can tell her that we feel exactly the same. The steps that have been taken not only cut costs but are an attempt to metropolitanise the BBC, which is completely contrary to its charter responsibilities.
I return to the explanation given to Members of Parliament in July and the letter that was sent to us. The letter purported to suggest that there would be an improvement in regional coverage of Parliament. It said, for example:
This important development can only be for the good. It will put in place a more effective system of political coverage and one with which you … will find easier to liaise.
It will ensure major political regional developments are covered more comprehensively, with greater authority, and that the information reaches our regional and local centres quickly, and from there to our listeners and viewers".
That is wishful thinking. The new arrangements, as they have been set out, can only be to the detriment of the BBC's regional coverage and will not offer viewers and listeners the quality of output to which we have become accustomed.
The timing of the announcement was exceptionally reminiscent of the worst media management of successive Ministers. The BBC set out plans for parliamentary


coverage just as the House was rising for the summer and, indeed, as its staff were leaving Millbank to do jobs in other parts of the country, or to go on holiday. In a letter to Ariel, the BBC's in-house magazine, members of the National Union of Journalists and the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union—BECTU—wrote:
The announcement that the regional political editor's post and that of the regional Westminster correspondent were to be scrapped and replaced by a new post seems to have been timed deliberately to forestall discussion by both staff and MPs, coming as it did three days before the summer recess, just as all concerned were leaving for their summer holidays.
Those very astute political observers have spotted that their own bosses have been playing the games of media manipulation that we are used to from Ministers.
The claim that those cuts will strengthen political coverage is, in my view, deliberately misleading. I can imagine what Lord Reith would say about it. The 10 dedicated political correspondents based full-time at Westminster are to be replaced by four hard-pressed journalists trying to cover the whole United Kingdom. How does that strengthen the BBC's coverage of Parliament and politics?
Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) went to Millbank for an interview, only to be confronted by utter chaos. If other hon. Members have been over there in the past two or three days, they will know that the place is rundown, and depressed and dispirited as a result. No one seemed to know what was going on, and no one had any knowledge of the area.
BBC journalists themselves—we must assume that they are of the highest possible calibre, because the BBC management keeps telling us that they are—have today issued Members with a National Union of Journalists brief from its chapel about the debate:
The BBC is representing this change as an 'enhancement' of regional political coverage. This is not the case. What the BBC failed to point out, in its letter to MPs last July, is that the 10 existing posts of Westminster Correspondents, based at 4, Millbank have been abolished. They will be replaced, eventually, by a team of four journalists at Millbank, working in support of the Regional Editors. They will not represent any particular region, and therefore will not be able to maintain individual contact with the region's MPs.
The BBC sought to give the impression that the new Political Editors would be working from Westminster during Parliamentary term time. This is not the case. With their commitments in their regions, and taking into account travelling time, it is unlikely that they will be able to pay more than occasional visits to Westminster. Also, the facilities available to them at Westminster will be cut back. Coverage of Parliament is therefore bound to suffer.
The BBC says it wants to base coverage of politics in the regions themselves. We feel, with one person expected to cover politics from both ends of the country simultaneously, coverage will inevitably suffer. The NUJ believes this to be a cost-cutting exercise".
As a former member of the NUJ, I regard that as an accurate and level-headed account that in no way exaggerates the situation.
As for the claim that the appointment of political journalists in each region will offer us all a one-stop shop for contact—

Mr. David Winnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene now. I apologise for the fact that I have to be somewhere else

shortly, but I am pleased to be here for his speech. Does he agree—the Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting may or may not agree, but even if she does she is hardly likely to say so—that the chaos at the BBC has reached such a state that the director general and the chairman should consider their position?
Do not the developments in regional reporting that the hon. Gentleman is eloquently describing, stem largely from the way in which the BBC has done its best to undermine the national reporting of Parliament? "Yesterday in Parliament", which we have debated several times, provides an example. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the BBC is treating Parliament with utter contempt?

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has long experience of such matters, and I think that he will agree that the present situation is unprecedented. Indeed, the appearance of BBC representatives before the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport yesterday confirmed that there has been a major breakdown in Parliament's confidence in the way in which the corporation is run. I should add that I spoke to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), yesterday, and he wished to be here for the debate but cannot attend. I think that he too would endorse our views.
I shall use my region, the south-west, to illustrate the way in which the rundown of our service is likely to affect the quality of the output of the BBC. We already have in the region an excellent and experienced political editor. There is no change in that respect, no improvement. How can that man be expected to be in Plymouth and Westminster at the same time, and to cover late-breaking stories—a familiar experience in both places? Indeed, late-breaking stories are an experience with which every hon. Member will be familiar, because they happen in all parts of the country. It is beyond me that such an arrangement should be even contemplated, let alone attempted.
It takes about four and a half hours for the political editor to travel from the studio in Plymouth to the studio in Westminster. Within that time, even with modern communications—especially as Great Western Trains seems to be conspiring to try to make the time even longer, and most of the line seems to be out of contact for mobile telephones—he cannot keep abreast of developments in this place day by day and hour by hour, let alone minute by minute.
Stories break suddenly, as we all know, and events take place that are of great significance to our constituents. Such is life in politics. I fear that all too often, when something is happening in the south-west, the editor will be on a train, or here, and that when something is happening here, he will be on a train, or in the region. That is inevitable. Even when he appears at Westminster, he will have to compete at the Millbank studios with nine other editors, and the resident journalists, for three or four desks and a limited number of camera crews.
The whole operation is being run down to danger point, and starved of the necessary resources. Even if we are lucky and the political editor is at Westminster and available for an interview, there is no guarantee that he will have the facilities and the support crew that he needs.
Such practical concerns have not been thoroughly thought through by management, despite the long time for which they have been gestated. No one has explained


convincingly to me or to anyone else in this place, or to the staff of the BBC, how the logistics of the new operation will work.
It is by no means clear what the four full-time journalists—the quartet who are left of the original 10—will do. So few people cannot be expected to keep in contact with all 659 Members of Parliament, let alone people in the other place, and their own regional political editors. There will be no specialisation, and no geographical or regional expertise available either to the regional editors or to ourselves.
Both radio and television coverage of Parliament will undoubtedly suffer as a result. I am especially concerned about the effects on Back Benchers. The parties, and certainly the Government, have access to a huge number of opportunities to ensure that their views are broadcast—and don't we all know it. For Back Benchers, however, making connections and forming a continuing professional relationship with a journalist who knows something about our constituencies and our regions is crucial.
I suspect that the BBC is once again, perhaps unconsciously, playing into the hands of the Government. It is the official view from Downing street and Whitehall that is most likely to be heard, rather than the views of Members, in all parts of the House, who may take a differing view.
Under the old regime, until the end of July, all Back Benchers had to do was contact somebody whom we already knew in Millbank to organise a discussion of the issues of the day. We could feel confident that he or she would know the background and something about our area, our constituencies and our special interests. He or she would also be aware of what was happening here, and its relevance to what was happening in the region. The connections would be made; one did not have to give a long explanation of where Cornwall is, or why Scotland is important. The journalist would already know; that would be part of the job. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives discovered yesterday, if one goes to the studios now, there is no guarantee that there will be anyone there who knows anything about our activities either here or in the region.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) first heard about the proposals, independently of my own representations he wrote to the BBC as follows:
We also have a dedicated political correspondent at Westminster … This person is the one that we would deal with on a daily basis. I regularly see him about the House of Commons, we exchange political information in that form, he is always available on the 'phone when stories are breaking, he can be relied on to see what is going on in The Gallery so I do not have to inform him every time I make an intervention or a speech, and most important he is well aware of the developing stories in the South West, their origin and the way in which they look like developing for the future.
Every hon. Member here will have a similar experience, and will be able to say that in the past the BBC has been able to take the temperature in the House in a reasonably effective way.
Most important of all, the BBC has failed to consult the House, either through individual Members of Parliament or through the House authorities. I know that Madam Speaker has made direct representations to the chairman of the BBC in the past about the lack of consultation, and

I believe that the timing of the announcement at the end of July showed what the BBC thinks of her, of the House and of us as Members of it.
In my role shadowing the Leader of the House for my party, I have come across no one who shares the view that this move will—in the words of the BBC—
put in place a more effective system of political coverage.
I find no one who thinks that Members of Parliament will find it easier to liaise. I find no one who thinks that it will ensure that major political and regional developments are covered more comprehensively. Quite the contrary; everyone to whom I have spoken, in all parties, regards the proposals—on top of the other earlier reductions in the quality and accessibility of our coverage this year—as yet more dumbing down of Parliament and politics.
This morning, a publication entitled "Our Commitment to You: The BBC's Statement of Promises to Viewers and Listeners" arrived on my desk. Other Members may have seen it. I have looked through it quickly, and the word "Parliament" does not appear in the publication's 24 pages. Indeed, I can find no reference to politics or political activity. It is as though the BBC is saying that this place does not matter, and it is an insult that it should send such material at this time.

Mr. Richard Spring: If the hon. Gentleman were to look carefully in the section detailing the specific promises for this year, he would find that under No. 5—this may be the nearest we get to politics—the BBC promises to
devise programmes which respond to devolution and political change in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has examined the document with even more care than me. However, I believe that I am right in saying that the word "Parliament" does not appear—not even in the context of the Scottish Parliament.
Quite apart from the BBC's intention, there is continuing confusion about the planned level of staffing. Since the original letter to which I have referred—sent on 28 July to Members of Parliament—the BBC has clearly panicked. Even after the limited response that the BBC received during the parliamentary recess from Members of Parliament, it panicked in the face of the immediate and unanimous concerns that were voiced. The latest briefing that I have been sent claims:
there is the option—still the subject of negotiation—of having up to nine full-time regional correspondents, albeit on a lower grade.
That has just popped out of the air in the past few days. It may be that, for once, someone is listening to Members of Parliament. I hope so, because this is a serious issue.
We do not know whether this move is all part of a ratings war with ITV, satellite and cable, or just a cost-cutting exercise to feed the voracious appetite of the coming digital revolution. Journalists believe it is the latter; I believe it may be a combination of the two.
If the BBC does not take Parliament seriously, why should we support the continuation of the licence fee? If it does not take us seriously, why should we take it seriously? Whatever else may happen, the BBC will still look to us to support it when the charter and licence arrangements are reviewed in the next few months. The chairman, governors and top management should be


warned that Parliament will not take seriously their efforts to persuade us to recognise their public service role if they continue to undervalue Parliament.
The BBC's war of attrition in terms of its coverage of our affairs must end if the corporation is to continue to enjoy special privileges. If it cannot guarantee effective parliamentary and political reportage at all levels, it cannot claim to remain Britain's national broadcaster, and it must give way to someone else.
I believe, as do Members of Parliament and most members of the public, that Parliament is still the heart of our democratic system. The Speaker has warned the BBC on a number of occasions that it is out of touch with opinion here and in the country if it fails to recognise that. I hope that it heeds that warning before it is too late.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on gaining this Adjournment debate on an important subject. The hon. Gentleman referred to the early-day motion that I managed to table on the last day before the long summer recess. The subject of it was brought to my attention by someone who knew what was happening in the BBC; we were not privy to that.
I am sure that Members will understand how difficult it is on the last day before the recess—indeed, the last afternoon—to get six Members of Parliament together, explain to them what is going on, win their trust and get them to put their signatures to an early-day motion. I am delighted that I was able to do so on an all-party basis. It is important that Members of all parties in the House believe that regional input into what we do here is important.
In my view, the three most important words in terms of the BBC are "public service obligation". The hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned the licence fee. We must justify why we tax every household in the land—I assume most have television sets—to the tune of £100 for the licence fee for the BBC, which will go up.
In her previous exalted position on the Opposition Back Benches, the Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting said that the BBC ought to do a lot more to offer pensioners a reduced licence fee. Since she has got into a position to do something about it, she has changed her position somewhat. Perhaps we will hear something from her about that matter later. However, we thought that the licence fee bore heavily upon certain licence payers.

The Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The hon. Gentleman will know that it is our intention to set up a panel next year to review the BBC licence fee. We have made it plain in correspondence with hon. Members from all parties that that review will include a detailed consideration of the current arrangements for licence fee concessions.

Mr. Evans: I am delighted to learn that—it may be breaking news. All Members of Parliament get constituents at our surgeries who find it difficult to understand why some obtain a concession down to being

charged £5 for the licence fee while others in similar circumstances do not. The BBC will be listening carefully to what the Minister has said.
Since the early-day motion was tabled, we have been privy to information from the BBC. I have read carefully what the BBC's Michael Hastings has had to say. He is a great man but he is trying to justify the unjustifiable, although I am sure that the matter has just landed on his plate. I suspect that he had as little consultation on the re-arrangement of regional reporting as we had—which, of course, was little to none. However, his justification is pretty thin.
The BBC has already tried to marginalise the House of Commons through the changes to "Yesterday in Parliament". We were all told what a great thing that would be—we would have a much longer programme. However, the reality is that fewer people are able to listen to it. We were told that people did not want to listen because we were all boring and that they were switching off. I could imagine that some people may think us boring, but it could also have had something to do with the time of the programme. People were going to work and doing other things, and they were not able to sit and listen to it. Therefore, fewer people were able to our listen directly to our quotes on "Yesterday in Parliament."
People could argue that a wide choice is now available, with more channels and digital television. Yesterday saw the launch of BBC Parliament, the running channel made available on cable, satellite and digital on which people will be able to see non-stop coverage of the House of Commons. Few are able to see what is going on in the House of Commons currently, and the change is taking place now.
The suspicion might be that all the changes at the BBC—such as the enormous investment in the internet, which has produced some superb pages, and all the extra channels going on to digital—are costing a lot of money. The BBC is cash-limited by the licence fee, and it cannot take advertising. It is limited in terms of how it can raise revenue. One way it can do so is by chopping back and by saving money elsewhere. The BBC is saving money at the expense of the reporting of regional aspects of what is happening at Westminster.
As has been said, Front-Bench Members have enormous opportunities to be on the news at 1 o'clock and 9 o'clock and to be on various other radio stations throughout the day. They get a good hit at such broadcasting. Also, all our front players have the opportunity to appear on "On the Record". Regional reporting is completely different and it gives us an opportunity to air what we are doing here on behalf of our constituents back home. Sending journalists from London to our areas will not help us much.
The trust that is built up between regional journalists and Members of Parliament has been mentioned. In six years, I have got to know regional journalists from all the channels well, including the BBC. That trust cannot be fathomed or weighed. One cannot say, "This is what it is worth," but we know that it is worth a lot. One can pick up the telephone, talk to the regional journalist and know that what one is saying will be heard in confidence. Suggestions may be made and the journalist may be able to assist by getting a programme together or doing a piece on the issue concerned and on what the Member of Parliament is saying about it in the House. If the number


of regional journalists working in the House is reduced to a mere handful, with all the others working in the regions, it will be difficult to build up the same sort of rapport with such a small group. The journalists will be snowed under, given our extra work load and all the extra issues with which we seem to be involved. Members of Parliament are already snowed under and the case load seems to increase every Session. The same must apply to journalists.
I do not know whether hon. Members have had a chance to see "News 24", the new 24-hour rolling news programme from the BBC. It is good in parts, but not good enough. I have argued that the programme could use much of the regional reporting from here, so that all the United Kingdom has a better understanding of what is going on in our country. It is all very well having good-quality programming for the regions, but why not share it out more and put some of it on "News 24", thereby making the cost of some of the reports on it more economic. As we know, news reporting is expensive. I hope that the BBC will reconsider that suggestion.
The regions have already suffered. In my area, we receive BBC's "North Westminster", on which the Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting has appeared from time to time, and very good she is, too. A few years ago her wonderful appearances on that programme used to be aired twice, on the Sunday edition, which went out live, and again on the mid-week repeat. The latter had more viewers than the Sunday edition, but it was chopped. There again, a smaller audience will be left to see what we are doing at Westminster and find out what issues we are fighting for.
The BBC has made a mistake. The hon. Member for North Cornwall said that it is now rushing about, trying to plug holes and to placate us, but we are not for placating on this issue. We are fighting not for ourselves but for our constituents, who watch regional programmes and who want to know what we are doing. They write to us and from time to time they want to see us on regional television to ensure that their voices are being heard at Westminster, where it is important.

Mr. John Burnett: The hon. Gentleman touches on a crucial issue. Does he agree that it is not merely that our constituents want to see what we are doing, but that they are incredibly interested in highlighting the issues that they hold so dear, especially in the regions?

Mr. Evans: I agree. These are not merely the issues that interest us but those that the people in the regions feed to us—the issues about which they write to us, campaign and form lobby groups. We use regional journalists at Westminster, with whom we have built up trust, to get our constituents' views aired on the BBC on a regional basis, according to the public service obligation for which all our constituents pay their licence fee.
We want some balance. We want the BBC to reconsider. A few years ago, if the BBC was famous for anything, it was for its repeats. Let it look again at its decisions. Where it has made mistakes, let it concede that it has done so. Let the BBC concede that it has rushed this decision through without any proper consultation, that it has made mistakes about "Yesterday in Parliament" and let it change its mind. Let it ensure that there is a real

improvement in the regional slant of the reporting of Westminster, so that we can air the issues and campaigns that matter most to our constituents. The only way in which we can properly do so is by consulting with regional journalists based here, with whom we build up trust and whom we see daily—not merely fleetingly every two or three weeks in the Lobby, when so many other people want to see them—so that we can get our views across on the BBC.
The Minister talked about the review of the licence fee. I ask her to use pressure to remind the BBC of its public service obligation. That is the reason why home owners and the taxpayer have to pay the licence fee in the first place—so that the BBC can cover in detail areas that would not be appropriate for commercial stations. Today, we are saying that the BBC is wrong and should think again.

Mr. David Heath: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing this debate, as it is vital that the matter be given a proper airing in the House, and I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to speak about it. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), not only on his speech, with which I entirely agreed, but on his efforts and prompt action in the dark days at the end of July when any sensible person had gone back to his or her constituency to prepare for the holidays but some of us benighted souls were still here to sign the early-day motion that he pressed upon us in the corridors.
This has not been a good week for the BBC, what with the loss of the cricket coverage, the savaging by a Select Committee, the adventures of "Blue Peter" and the evidence that some presenters have an affection for more than sticky-backed plastic, and now this debate on the BBC's regional coverage. It is terribly easy for us to sound pompous on this subject and for it to be suggested that we feel passionately about it because we like hearing our own voices on the BBC. Let us be honest: there may be an element of that. We like to be able to project what we are saying to the people we represent.
However, there are far more important issues at stake for people in the regions—the service that the British Broadcasting Corporation provides for them. There are two main elements to their concern. The first is public service broadcasting, its ethos and what it means to have a BBC—something for which many of us have argued strongly and which we want protected and enhanced because it is such an important element of our national structure.
I do not like the term "dumbing down", which has been used this morning. It is an example of dumbing down to introduce that Americanism. However, we all share the feeling that the BBC is retreating from the intellectual and moral high ground that it was once able to occupy. There is a sense that it no longer aims any higher than catering for the lowest common denominator; that is not the role of the BBC, either under its charter or historically.
I also believe that the BBC has been deeply patronising in what it has suggested about parliamentary coverage and the public's interest in what happens in this place. It assumes that people are interested only in bread and circuses. I do not believe that that is so, but it is, of course,


a self-fulfilling prophecy—if that is all that people are given access to, how can they develop an interest in politics and in the arguments in this House that will have a dramatic impact on their everyday lives?
One has only to look at other countries to see the great hunger for information about politics that is engendered where one may not expect it. Yesterday, I returned from the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, where I was monitoring the elections. There, where democracy is young and the public have had little opportunity to hold their politicians to account, people are remarkably well informed and understand the nuances of political argument, as their national broadcasting corporation carries daily the debates in their Parliament, the Sobranje.
People listen and want to know the arguments. One could say that that is inevitable in a young democracy in an area of the world that is not known for its stability, but it highlights how patronising it is to say that the British people cannot be interested in politics, or that they cannot understand anything but the most simplistic voting system—it is thought too difficult to put a tick or circle in a different place. The House should condemn such patronising attitudes.
As well as the public service ethos, we should consider the BBC's commitment to our localities and regions, about which, as someone from the west country and a Somerset lad through and through, I feel strongly. I know how far it is from London to the west country, a fact which seems to have eluded those who are based at Westminster. I know that what matters down in Somerset is not the same as what matters to the metropolitan elite in London. What we believe to be important is as valid as what people in London believe to be important—the issues that we want to raise are important.
I am sure that, like many of us, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall has come across people who assume that the distance between Penzance and Swindon is about five miles, that places past Slough are only a short trip away from one another and that anywhere in Somerset cannot be far from a broadcasting studio in Bristol even though it may be an hour and a quarter away. People are not aware of the geography of the area.
As the hon. Member for Ribble Valley said, the BBC has a duty to inform people of what we, as Members of Parliament, are doing on their behalf. We are not sent to Westminster to disappear from the map, not to be seen until the next election. Many hon. Members spend a lot of time ensuring that they are in touch with their constituents so that they can express their views in the House—but where is the feedback if not through the media? How do our constituents know what we are doing, or trying to do, and achieving, or not achieving, on their behalf? That is an important element in the democratic process.
My concern is not only political coverage; there is also a shrinkage in general coverage within the localities. My example is parochial, although I make no apology for that. Somerset Sound, which is an opt-out from Radio Bristol—we never qualified for a radio station of our own—used to provide a number of hours of local broadcasting from Taunton each day. Recently, those hours have been substantially reduced. We no longer have an afternoon programme from Taunton; it now comes

from Bristol. I do not believe that that is because there is no demand. People want local news and views, and Bristol news, Bristol views and even a Bristol accent are not the same as Somerset news, Somerset views and a Somerset accent.
The link-up was made with no consultation with me or my colleagues who represent the Somerset constituencies—there was no attempt to reconcile us to the change. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) took up the matter, he received a remarkably candid reply from the managing editor, for whom I have considerable respect—I know that she is strongly committed to our local services. She said that her problem was money; she had not been given the budget to provide the local services in Somerset to which the BBC is, in theory, committed and which it should provide as part of its public service.
The lack of regional coverage poses three threats. First—I do not want to be too pompous—there is a threat to democracy, as local people are being further distanced from the political process and will understand it less; they will not be able to know what we are doing on their behalf and so will find it more difficult to hold us to account. Moreover, it will be more difficult properly to discuss local issues, as what starts as a local campaign seems to evaporate into the ether, never to be mentioned again. Secondly, there is a threat to local identity, as local broadcasting—and the knowledge that people are intimately concerned with the area and want to represent its views—is at least part of that local identity.
Thirdly and most importantly, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall said, there is a threat to the BBC. If the BBC cannot provide local and regional coverage and does not live up to the public service ethos for which it was created, what is it doing and why should we impose a tax to pay for it? It has a duty to provide intelligent coverage and properly researched comment for all parts of the country, not only for London, and it forgets that at its peril.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing this debate. This is an important issue, and it is right that it should be aired in the House. However, it is a pity that our debates on particular BBC issues turn into BBC-bashing sessions.
I profoundly disagree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). The BBC's job is to satisfy its audience, who pay for it through the £100 licence fee. If the BBC broadcasts a version of Macedonian television, on which he seems to be so keen, people will not sit round their sets listening to our breathless prose; they will switch to the many hundreds of digital and other channels that they will shortly be able to receive.

Mr. David Heath: According to the hon. Gentleman's thesis—if I understand it correctly—the BBC should be subject to market forces and not receive the licence fee. He cannot have it both ways: either the BBC is a public resource or it is not.

Mr. Atkinson: The BBC has to have it both ways. If it fails to deliver substantial audiences, hon. Members and


others will say that it should not receive the licence fee, as it provides bad value to those who pay that fee. The BBC walks a tightrope, and we must allow it, in fulfilling its public service obligation—which it does very well—to make sensible editorial judgments.
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) about "Yesterday in Parliament". That programme can now be found on long wave, so that many more people can listen to it—his quality prose can be heard in Belgium, Holland, northern France and the Republic of Ireland as well as in this country.

Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that while it is possible to listen to long wave in Belgium or wherever, that is not possible in some parts of London, let alone in Cornwall. Has the hon. Gentleman read that the BBC itself has already admitted that its listener figures have collapsed for "Yesterday in Parliament", "Today in Parliament" and "The Week in Westminster"? So on the hon. Gentleman's own definition—that all that matters is the number of people listening—the BBC has already made a major mistake.

Mr. Atkinson: It does not say much about our performance in the House that we are of such little interest to listeners that they cannot simply click a switch at 8.45. The fact that they cannot do that probably says more about the House than it does about the BBC. I assure the hon. Member that our constituents are not queueing up to see the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on the television. We kid ourselves if we think that the public are fighting to see us on television and to listen to us on the radio: they are not.
Having, I hope, slightly defended the BBC's right to make independent editorial judgments on what it transmits, I go on in part to agree with what the hon. Member for North Cornwall said about political coverage at Westminster. I am concerned not so much with what the BBC proposes to do as with how it has done it, how it has treated its staff, and to an extent, how it has misled the House in its correspondence. I agree with him entirely that, if the BBC wants to reduce political coverage, it should stand up and say why. It should come to the House and say, "You are all so boring that we don't want to cover you any more", or whatever. Let us have it in the open so that it can be properly debated.

Mr. Burnett: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is at least a paradox that commercial television is, as far as I know, retaining all its regional coverage? Can he explain that away?

Mr. Atkinson: I am trying to criticise the BBC not for its decision, but for the way in which it arrived at it. It is not my job to defend it. These are the kind of arguments that we should have had with the BBC, not this muddling and misleading correspondence that we had with it before the recess.
The BBC must stand accused of causing a tremendous amount of uncertainty and worry to its regional staff as a result of its decision. The letter that was sent just before the recess gave me the wrong impression that the political editors would be down here in Westminster during the parliamentary Session and travel back for the recess. That manifestly is not the case and not what was planned, but

it is what I thought was intended. We will have four gofers in Westminster, and the political editors will have to travel down.
I represent a north-east seat. BBC staff from my area who want to come here will be faced with at least a three-and-a-half-hour train journey to get to London in order to cover a story and a three-and-a-half-hour train journey back, perhaps spending the night in London. The same would apply to the constituency of the hon. Member for North Cornwall. It is ludicrous that that should be so. We should ask the BBC—perhaps the Minister can put some pressure on it—to think again about this. If it proposes to do this—as I said, it is entitled to—it should make a proper and open case and explain its rationale. If it is done to save money in order to invest in digital television and new technology, so be it. The BBC has to compete in that world as well.
I have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley that BBC news 24 hours a day would not be enhanced by long periods showing our debates in the House. Something more attractive will have to be sought. I criticise the BBC for its handling of the matter, but we should not use this debate to attack its integrity and editorial independence.

Mr. Richard Allan: It is important not to launch into the BBC and also to say that we will have to work with the new structure whatever it is. But against that background I want to make the case strongly for a regional component of the BBC, and to mention in particular the issue of honesty about the changes to which the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) referred.
There is a reality lag between large parts of the United Kingdom and Westminster. We all suffer from it when we return from the recess and the world of ordinary folk to the slightly odd world that we inhabit here. Regional correspondents had an important role to fill in bridging that reality gap between, in my case, my constituency in Sheffield and what happens in Westminster. It was that local component, that connection, which made Westminster understandable and intelligible. In some cases, correspondents are better able to explain what happens here than some of us practitioners, who often end up confused.
It is important that the people in the regions see us at work. They want to see all those whom they have elected and whose wages they pay at work, not just members of the Government and prominent parliamentarians, but the Back Benchers who represent them. That is the component most likely to suffer if we take the regional correspondents out, as the BBC has already done.
That connection is apparent when we bump into the correspondents in Central Lobby and refer to something that is happening the next day or next week and ask what is going on. That day-to-day contact is crucial. I can say that something is happening in Sheffield and know the correspondent will be aware of previous debates six months ago, or of the fact that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) had a debate 12 months ago. They can link those up and put together a package which is about Sheffield and Yorkshire rather than simply a hook on to a national news story.
My great fear is that, particularly with the media machine that the Government have skilfully put together, which means that its members get up earlier in the


morning than anyone else to get the stories out, and are often dead by midday, an ordinary Back Bencher cannot get on to the back of a national story. We have been shut out and are left with our regional stories. Adjournment debates—there is one later this morning on a crucial issue concerning South Yorkshire—on local issues will always be covered by regional correspondents because they know that the matter is important and will be keeping their eyes open for it.

Mr. Steve Webb: Does my hon. Friend accept that some talented and dedicated reporters have tragically been sacked—for example, Viv Robbins in the west country, who has given faithful service? As my hon. Friend said, such people are more expert than we are.

Mr. Allan: I agree. Our attachment to our regional correspondents is a testament to the skilful way in which they have done their jobs. I shall not mention any, because I did so in a previous debate and I understand that they currently do not have a contract, so I was obviously not helpful. However, that connection, and the warmth that we feel for them, reflect the fact that Adjournment debates and parliamentary questions on local issues will simply not receive coverage without someone being tuned into them, picking them up and putting them out. With the best will in the world, while we will all try to make the new arrangement work, it will not give staff adequate time to pick up on regional issues.
The way in which the proposals have been sold is shameful. Technology is moving on, but it is often used as an excuse for reducing coverage. Digital television is mentioned and we are told that there is coverage on the internet. I am a great technology fan, and I congratulate the members of staff who have managed to put my name up on the annunciator. There we see technology moving forward. But at the moment digital television and the internet do not have the coverage of terrestrial television. With the best will in the world, we cannot say that, just because we put a debate on the internet or on a digital or cable channel, it will achieve the same coverage as it would on mainstream terrestrial television.

Mr. Tyler: Even the best technology is still dependent on human input and, since my constituency came up wrong on the annunciator, I hope that my hon. Friend, as chairman of the Select Committee on Information, will take note and see that next time it appears as North Cornwall rather than Cornwall, North.

Mr. Allan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping us with some of the teething troubles. I am sure that that will have been noted by those who are ever vigilant in the annunciator box.
Technology is moving on, but it should not be used as an excuse to take things off terrestrial television. There is an argument which, taken to its logical conclusion, would put all politics on marginal specialised channels within media such as the internet and digital television.
It could be argued that, in terms of the number of hours, coverage has increased, but in terms of real coverage to real people, that does not work. The point made by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) about long

wave versus FM signals is another example of a reality lag. In the real world, people simply do not switch from one to the other. If they are like me, they turn on the radio in the morning and are too bleary-eyed to change a channel on a push-button radio, let alone one with a dial. Moreover, radios commonly do not have long wave. In reality, people turn on the radio and tune to FM because it has a better signal in most parts of the country. Long wave is a distraction; it is not a serious option for people to listen to FM, suddenly to switch over for "Yesterday in Parliament", and then to switch back.
Technology should not be used as an excuse. It would be much more honest to deal with things as I deal with the commercial or independent sector in my region. We have open and honest debates about the role of political coverage, the stories it likes to cover and what is interesting and what is not. It is a pity that the BBC has not been honest and said, "We think that politics is boring and we want to reduce coverage. We only want 'man bites dog' stories because 'dog bites man'—ordinary parliamentary coverage—is no longer attractive enough." If the BBC came to us and said that, we could have a debate on those terms.
Unfortunately, we have had a debate in which the BBC has been saying, "We are expanding coverage, we have many new technologies and everything will be wonderful." In fact, we all suspect that the BBC is making it much harder to achieve the coverage that we want.
We need honesty in the debate, and we need to deal with the mass market versus specialist market interests. We need to deal with the serious broadcasting role of the BBC and its relationship to the licence fee. In that way we would no longer be floundering around, all talking on different terms and pretending that everything is fine in the garden when it is not. Honesty here is essential.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall for initiating this debate. He has done us a service by communicating the views of a range of honourable Members to the BBC. Hopefully, the comments of the Minister will communicate an official viewpoint. If we can get an honest debate, we will be able to come up with the type of regional coverage that will work, rather than making life deliberately difficult for ourselves by having people shunting around on trains or just not coming here at all.

Mr. Richard Spring: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing this important debate. He put his argument extremely cogently. I thank all those who participated in the debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) who has been a champion of this cause for some time and who probably knows more about the media than anybody else in the House. I welcome the Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) to her new role and to the Chamber this morning.
This is a period of rapid change in the media, most notably in the BBC. We are seeing changes taking place in radio and television and we are seeing the move from terrestrial to digital. I am sure that I am not alone in having seen the new parliamentary channel in its digital form being presented by the BBC yesterday. It is impressive, but whether people will watch it in the numbers that parliamentarians may wish remains to be seen.
I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of a BBC funding review. The Secretary of State is keen on reviews, not all of which are entirely relevant, but we welcome this review in principle. The Secretary of State has said—I think that the House will agree—that the BBC needs to adapt and survive and needs to fulfil its public service obligations. Those are sentiments that the House can endorse as the Secretary of State looks at the funding picture for the BBC in the future.
I shall deal now with the specific point raised by the hon. Member for North Cornwall. Some months ago—I am sure that I was not alone in this—BBC journalists based at Millbank approached me with great concern about their future. They had heard rumours about the changes, but nothing had been decided at that time. I made inquiries with the BBC at senior managerial level and was given assurances that the concerns were not accurate and, in fact, were misplaced. We now know that those concerns were entirely accurate and that, while those remarks were being refuted, changes were in the pipeline. I regret that.
To echo what the hon. Member for North Cornwall said about his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), last week, in view of an impending visit to my constituency by one of the members of the shadow Cabinet, I sought to establish contact with the BBC at Millbank before Parliament resumed. It was impossible to track anybody down. I discovered that the individual with whom I usually dealt had disappeared. What transpired in practice is what we are now going to have to face, which is a reduced staff. The link mentioned by other hon. Members this morning has gone, and I regret that.
We are told that the justification for the change is that it is based upon the successful practice of BBC coverage in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are to be 10 regional political editors, and seven are in place. As we have heard this morning, they will be located in places such as Newcastle, Norwich or wherever. I believe this to be a profound mistake. No part of England is comparable to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Each of those places is evolving a different constitutional architecture and a different political structure. The entities that are the constituent parts of the United Kingdom are quite different from England. The justification for the establishment of the regional editors is the alleged success in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I do not believe that a regional political editor coming to London from time to time will be enough. We know that there will be a reduced team.
As I and other hon. Members have said, we have built up strong relationships with the journalists based at Millbank. They know about our interests and our activities and they are on the spot to make judgments about who to approach if a story breaks quickly. That link to Parliament is now being challenged.
There is a clear message—we saw it with the changes to Radio 4—about the view that the BBC is taking of Parliament and parliamentarians. I am concerned about the effect of that in practice because a message has been sent yet again from the BBC about its view of Parliament. I do not believe that it is correct or that it is in the public's long-term interest.
We have already heard about the difficulties over Radio 4. When the changes were first mooted last year, we know that Madam Speaker complained vociferously about the

scheduling changes, especially about "Yesterday in Parliament" moving to long wave. Many others echoed those sentiments. We were told that parliamentary coverage was being extended, and we were blinded by all sorts of statistics. When we sum up what happened and what is happening, we can see that there is greater width but an absence of depth. That is the crucial concern.
Tomorrow, RAJAR—Radio Joint Audience Research—will be telling us the latest Radio 4 listenership levels. I have spoken to RAJAR at length, but, quite properly, it did not reveal the figures although there have been leaks in the newspapers. We know already that the pattern that seems to be emerging is that, in absolute and relative terms, listenership is declining. That has come about in part because parliamentary coverage has been messed about and the widening of it has been at the expense of depth. As a result, people are switching off. With the proposals that we now have for television coverage, in addition to the Radio 4 coverage, Parliament will be seen to be even more irrelevant to people's lives. I look forward to the BBC's analysis of the RAJAR figures.
I want to use this opportunity to put things in context. We cannot look at the latest move in isolation. It is part of a pattern of the way in which the BBC projects itself in its public service interest. Undoubtedly, Radio 4 is the jewel in the crown of the BBC. Programmes such as "From Our Own Correspondent" are truly marvellous. However, we are increasingly seeing a downgrading of evidential and top-quality journalism in favour of quiz shows and chat shows, which are becoming ever more dominant.
I would not normally like to use the expression "dumbing down", but it fits in with many of the attitudes that now obtain, particularly in the Government, in respect of Parliament. When discussing Radio 4, the BBC's annual report and accounts for 1997–98 says:
The new schedule affirms the BBC's intent to place the listener at the heart of its thinking. The BBC will ensure that Radio 4 maintains the esteem and loyalty of its audience through the excellence of its programmes.
It goes on to talk about the independent advice panel and the fact that Radio 4 is a standard bearer for excellence.
We know in practice that that is simply not happening. As a result of the changes in Radio 4 and in regional coverage of Parliament, local BBC radio stations are now genuinely concerned about what will happen to them. My local radio station, BBC Radio Suffolk, is well valued by the local community. Local radio knows the issues, the problems and the Members of Parliament, and it does an extremely good job, not only in Suffolk, but throughout the country. It is naturally concerned that there will be some sort of regionalisation and a further loss of linkage between the local community, Members of Parliament and other movers and shakers in its area. I hope that the BBC will seek to give reassurance on that, because the obsession with regionalisation is wholly undesirable.
We have entrusted the BBC with a special status. It does not essentially have to refer to anybody. However, that places a special obligation on it. Although commercial stations also have public service obligations, the Independent Television Commission has a specific role to look at any possible changes in the coverage of ITV, Channels 4 and 5. That obligation via an independent body is not placed on the BBC, which has a special responsibility because it is substantially funded by licence payers.
We have heard about the extended coverage of news, and we know about News 24 and the enormous increase in channels. However, am I alone in believing that there has been a decline in quality in, for example, the flagship presentation of the Nine O'Clock News? News presentation is being increasingly tabloidised and factual reporting supplemented in ever-larger chunks by BBC correspondents' interpretation of events.
We dismiss television in the United States as being of poor quality. On the main news channels—ABC and NBC—news reporting is factual and without a huge back-up of interpretative reporting by journalists. Tabloidisation and other changes within the BBC are not welcome. Ultimately, they do not serve the BBC's best interests.
We must all accept that we are in the digital age. It is an enormously costly exercise, and huge sums are being invested in the BBC. I have some sympathy for the BBC in that regard. However, although the core functions of terrestrial television, political coverage and the jewel in the crown, Radio 4, must compete with the BBC's other functions, they must not be starved of funds because of digitalisation. That is in the best interests of neither the BBC nor the nation.
To keep the licence fee at the end of the consultation process and the independent review announced by the Secretary of State, the BBC should improve its quality. That is how to assure survival on the present basis. Given the importance of Parliament in the life of the nation, the way in which the changes have been put in place gives considerable cause for concern. The BBC has a special role in the life of this country. It has a public service remit to the people of the United Kingdom and their Parliament.

The Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I thank the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) for his kind congratulations. Most importantly, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing the debate. It is extremely important that we have an opportunity to discuss such issues in this place. The hon. Gentleman clearly takes his responsibility seriously in his capacity as a shadow leader of the House. He raised some interesting and important points, which I hope will be listened to carefully.
A number of hon. Members have contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) expressed concern about coverage in Scotland. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) also spoke. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), whom I almost referred to as my hon. Friend because he shares a region with me, often competes with me for regional coverage. He usually wins hands down. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that this had been a bad week for the BBC. May I repeat a popular slogan, which did the Labour party proud not too long ago—"Things can only get better"?
The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said that he hoped that this debate would not be an exercise in BBC bashing. I endorse that sentiment. In introducing the

debate, the hon. Member for North Cornwall said that he bet that there would be no report of today's debate on his regional BBC station. I hope that he is proved wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has had to leave the Chamber—I suspect that he is listening to an address by the Prime Minister elsewhere in the House—expressed concern about a decline in the national reporting of Parliament. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the widely respected Chairman of the Select Committee, cannot be here, as we would all have welcomed his contribution to the debate.
The obligations placed on the BBC in respect of its broadcasting services are set out in its "Royal Charter and Agreement". They include broad obligations in terms of the number of television and radio services, objectives and programme content, standards and scheduling. The BBC must provide a properly balanced service to serve the tastes and needs of different audiences. The BBC agreement also contains a specific programming requirement, introduced in 1948, that the corporation must transmit an impartial account day by day, prepared by professional reporters, of the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament. Within that framework, decisions about programme content and scheduling are wholly a matter for the corporation.

Mr. Tyler: I welcome the Minister warmly to her new post and commiserate with her that she has to be with us rather than listening to the Prime Minister, although she has probably heard more wisdom from us than she would from him.
There is an important distinction between what the Minister has just said and the BBC's new approach. Reportage of our debates will in future be treated as a specialist interest like potholing or collecting stamps, to be put in an exclusive ghetto of broadcasting wavelengths. I hope that she, and the Secretary of State, will consider that scenario carefully when the future of the BBC comes up for review.

Janet Anderson: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman's concern is shared widely in the House, and I shall come to that later.
The position that I have set out reflects the independence of the BBC in all editorial and management matters. That was first enshrined in the 1996 agreement, but it is not a new concept. The need for editorial independence from political and commercial influences has been one of the fundamental principles governing the BBC since its establishment as a public corporation in 1927.
The Government fully support that principle, but the BBC's independence brings with it obligations, including the need to be, and to be seen to be, accountable to licence fee payers, as stakeholders and customers; to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as the custodian of its charter and agreement; and to Parliament, as the public authority for the moneys paid through the licence fee. The BBC has a duty to keep in touch with its audiences and to be responsive to their concerns, and that includes Members of this House.
I shall quote from "BBC News: The Future", which is sub-titled "Public service news in the digital age". Hon. Members have referred to the concern that some of


the changes may be due to the digital revolution, which is fast approaching. I hope that hon. Members will be reassured by the booklet, which says:
We will report and engage audiences in the proceedings of Parliament and the devolved assemblies of the United Kingdom. We will help people to understand the working of government and to hold to account those who take decisions.
On reporting politics, it says:
The reporting of politics lies at the heart of our public purpose both to inform and facilitate democratic debate. The public recognise and confirm this as a central role for the BBC. Yet dissatisfaction with politicians, the political process and key aspects of political reporting present us with a challenge: how to continue providing proper coverage of politics but … make it more engaging and accessible to audiences. We want to ensure that political argument goes beyond the soundbite to enhance public understanding of the complexities that underlie political argument.
The pamphlet continues:
We are committed to covering Parliament thoroughly. We have already launched the new BBC Parliament channel which offers full access to all the proceedings in the two main chambers, plus committee coverage, to enable viewers to assess their legislators at work. This new channel will maintain links to the political background material in News Online. It will become Britain's answer to C-Span in the US. We will also provide continuous audio coverage on digital radio.
Our changes to parliamentary programming were approved by the Governors earlier this year.
I do not want to repeat what everyone has said about the changes that have taken place, because they have been given a full airing in this place.
The BBC believes that these new arrangements put in place a more effective system of political coverage for regional broadcasting in England at a time when regional politics is increasingly important. The key objective is to ensure that political coverage is at the heart of the BBC's main early-evening regional programmes and reaches as large an audience as possible.
The BBC also hopes that the new structure will make it easier for hon. Members to liaise with a senior figure in the editorial structure of each BBC region, and that major political developments in each region will be covered more comprehensively and with greater authority.
The BBC is aware that there is still some apprehension about the new structure, and that has certainly been reinforced by this morning's debate. I understand that Nigel Chapman, BBC Controller English Regions, has a meeting scheduled with the hon. Member for North Cornwall and his hon. Friends next week, which will provide an opportunity for these concerns to be aired. I hope that the hon. Gentleman finds the meeting useful.
The BBC's intention was to strengthen political and parliamentary coverage in the regions. I am sure that the hon. Member for North Cornwall, his hon. Friends and hon. Members on both sides of the House will keep a watching brief on the development of the new arrangements and whether they deliver the coverage of Parliament and politics that the BBC has undertaken to provide.
I do not believe that the BBC is out of touch with opinion in this country. It is important that it keeps in touch, and one of the best ways of doing that is to provide proper reporting of Parliament and politics. I thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall; I am sure that the BBC will be listening carefully to what he has to say.

Small and Medium Enterprises

Ms Margaret Moran: I welcome the opportunity to raise some of the competitiveness issues that small and medium enterprises in my constituency have raised with me. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry has said many times, SMEs are essential to this country's competitive edge and to the Government's competitiveness agenda. I am pleased that the White Paper on competitiveness, which is to be published soon, will reflect that.
I whole-heartedly welcome the fact that competitiveness is at the heart of our industrial and economic policy. It is a key issue for us in Luton, a town that has suffered badly from the boom-and-bust economics of the previous Government and their desertion of manufacturing industry. The competitiveness and productivity of our local companies are recognised as priorities for the Luton and Dunstable partnership and Luton borough council's economic development strategy, yet we still have difficulty, certainly at local level, identifying and spreading the factors that will increase competitiveness for our SMEs.
I raised that question with local businesses, the chamber of commerce, the local branch of the Federation of Small Businesses and the university of Luton over the recess. My visits and discussions ranged across the SMEs of virtually every sector in Luton, from the traditional hat industry to the engineering and manufacturing sectors, and from the service sector to high-tech firms. I committed myself to feeding back some of the views of those involved in Luton's smaller businesses, with my own observations. As ever, this is a partnership approach, aimed at getting what is best for Luton.
Although the issues raised are not new in the competitiveness debate, I hope that they will make some small contribution to ensuring that our competitiveness agenda recognises the coal face issues for SMEs and assures them that the Government are determined to promote their competitiveness. That does not mean going cap in hand to the Government; indeed, the "more grants" approach from some SMEs that I visit always sets alarm bells ringing about their productivity and competitiveness. Nor is it the old Tory Government approach of "sink or swim". Our smaller businesses can compete and flourish only when the Government are creating the right climate—for example, through our focus on education to help to upskill our people.
What do people at the coal face think about competitiveness? First, although the impact of the strong pound was raised with reasonable frequency, there was widespread recognition that the single most important factor for the competitiveness of the sector is creating a stable, long-term economic framework for planning and investment, whether in production, people or productivity. A senior executive of a small engineering company in our area said:
economic volatility is our greatest problem".
Secondly, although there is reasonable recognition of the work that we have already done to create the right climate for the sector, some businesses are concerned that, if our strategy to encourage investment is to be fulfilled, there is still a need further to extend the capital allowances.
The extension in the last Budget of enhanced allowances to small and medium-sized enterprises for investment in plant and machinery at 40 per cent. for a further year is welcome, but a longer extension would have been even more welcome. Other measures in the Budget, such as the reduction in the level of corporation tax to 20 per cent.—the lowest in Europe—represent a major boost to profits and should encourage investment, as should the improvements to cash flow from the abolition of advance corporation tax.
The reform in the Budget of the tax and national insurance system, and the simplification of the system by the alignment of the national insurance contribution system with the Inland Revenue, by the abolition of the NIC entry fee and by the alignment of the lower earnings limit with income tax personal allowance are welcome. Those measures will mean that small and medium-sized enterprises will pay about £140 million less tax in the next financial year, which is significant for our smaller businesses.
The national insurance reforms will eliminate 1 million employers' NIC charges, and will make it easier for employers to create new jobs, thereby complementing our new deal initiatives. That is significant for Luton, where unemployment in some wards in my constituency is more than 18 per cent.
Therein lies a further issue for Luton's small businesses: the level of recognition of the benefits to them of the new deal. Despite a series of high profile events, some of which I initiated, including a conference on the new deal hosted by Vauxhall Motors and a launch involving almost all the major employers based at or around London Luton airport, and the Government's national television campaign, I constantly have to explain the benefits of the new deal to every small and medium business that I visit. As most jobs are likely to come from that sector, it is clear that we need to do more. Dare I say that we should have a joint promotion involving the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Education and Employment to focus attention on the advantages that the new deal can offer, particularly in reducing the training costs of new employees.
One of the barriers to the involvement of small and medium-sized enterprises in the new deal is the perceived lack of skills on offer. The skills gap problem is not new for any business, but for us in Luton it is crucial. From hat manufacturers, such as Marida Ltd., to high-tech manufacturers, the problems are the same. A Bedfordshire training and enterprise council survey found that, of 50 local companies, 16 said that skills shortages had limited growth in the past 12 months or would limit growth in the coming year. Stanbridge Precision Turned Parts, which has 100 workers, has had to turn down work. With the cost of training running at £50,000 per new recruit—they are often then poached by other companies—more incentives for smaller businesses to assist with in-house training would be valuable. That is just one example of the skills crisis locally and nationally in the engineering sector.
The recent engineering audit carried out in conjunction with the Engineering Employers Federation, which I recently met in Luton, is to be applauded. It showed a

greater commitment to training by engineering SMEs than by their larger counterparts. However, it is clear that more incentives and a more targeted approach are needed.
Skills-based training is critical now, but to retain a competitive edge, training staff to embrace the new, more competitive ideas is crucial for the long term. Although SMEs in Luton recognise the immediate skills gap that needs to be tackled, they seem to be less certain about the need to maximise their skills base.
The ability to encourage innovation is an essential element of competitiveness. The level of innovation among small businesses in the Bedfordshire area is low compared with the level in the United Kingdom as a whole, according to a study undertaken by Luton university. That study concluded that, although there is some correlation between size of business and the level of innovation, that does not tell the whole story. Indeed, the factors that account for this focus on the macro level, and we still have little understanding of the processes at work. There is a clear need for more work in that area.
A further factor that the Government have recognised as a key to competitiveness in the small business sector is the ability to adapt to the information age. However, from my experience through my visits to businesses in Luton, it is clear that the importance and the opportunities of new technologies to the competitiveness of small and medium enterprises should be more widely known.
I am aware of the information society initiative programme for businesses that the Government have initiated, and its emphasis on this sector, but not many SMEs that I visited knew of it. That is borne out by research carried out recently by Bedfordshire chamber of commerce, which found that most small businesses in Luton and Bedfordshire use IT equipment, but feel that they are not making optimum use of what they have.
On my recent visit to a company with 80 employees, it was depressing to be told that the only technology in the company was an ancient computer used for the payroll, and that there was a director who was proud of knowing nothing about new technology. I hope that that is atypical, but I fear that for many, the information age is an issue only for the emerging technologies sector and the so-called "tech stars." The message I give to all small businesses is to "get wired."
Our SMEs have much to learn from their counterparts in Canada, which I recently visited. There, the new technologies are integrated into every aspect of business life, from the large to the micro, and from systems to new production methods. We could all learn from Industry Canada' s strategy for creating a knowledge-based economy, which recognises that investment in knowledge contributes directly to competitiveness and growth in all sectors. It has set clear targets for working in partnership with all businesses to promote the recognition of knowledge as a fundamental factor in improving efficiency of production and distribution processes, and in improving the quality, variety and quantity of products.
The proof is that businesses that develop new ideas, manufacture new products and deliver new services succeed. Output in Canada is expanding fastest in knowledge-intensive firms, which are also creating the most jobs. Canarie and Tara in Halifax provide repayable loans to emerging and small companies. Their support for innovation in the application of new technologies is an example of the practical application of the strategy, and can enhance competitiveness for smaller firms.
In this country, the small business foresight programme and the university for industry will have a crucial role to play in helping SMEs to increase competitiveness in these areas. The university for industry cannot come soon enough for many small businesses in Luton. Given the concerns that I have expressed about the competitiveness of SMEs locally, I am delighted that Luton university is rising to the challenge right now. It has recognised that competitiveness is a priority for British business, and that a structured approach is required to tackle the impediments.
At the moment, there is no nationally recognised centre where organisations can seek advice on improving their competitiveness. That is why the national centre for competitiveness is being established. It will help to provide solutions to the new demands of the world's marketplace by working with business to define the key elements of competitiveness, by benchmarking, by drawing on best practice and, crucially, by focusing on practical application.
With a plethora of small businesses on the centre's doorstep, it has confirmed that it will play a key role in enhancing competitiveness among small businesses locally. I welcome its contribution to this task, and I look forward to working with the centre to the competitive benefit of Luton's small and medium-sized enterprises.

The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) has chosen this important topic for us to debate. I congratulate her on her work with local small businesses. She has done very well to use the recess period for that purpose, and to secure a debate so soon afterwards. She raised a number of important issues that directly affect businesses in her constituency, all other small businesses and, indeed, all who aspire to run their own enterprises.
The Government have said a number of times, here and elsewhere, that small businesses are the life blood of our economy. If they are not competitive, the country is not competitive. That is why the Government are so committed to helping to create an environment in which businesses have the confidence to grow and prosper, whatever their size and in whichever sector they operate. In doing that, we shall generate wealth, employment opportunities, and opportunities for firms to innovate and create.
Since the general election, the Government have been working to establish strong links with businesses at all levels, to ensure that they really understand the issues that concern them and what affects their ability to compete. We aim to be a listening as well as a doing Government, and what my hon. Friend has said is particularly welcome because it will enable us to perform such a role.
We know that gaining access to appropriate finance is a key issue for all businesses, but especially for smaller firms.

Mr. Colin Breed: Does the Minister share my concern about the recent statement that, now that banks are ploughing hundreds of millions of pounds into black holes known as hedge funds, they may find it more difficult to support small and medium-sized enterprises? Will she seek confirmation from the chairmen

of the clearing banks that any irresponsible lending in which they have engaged internationally in respect of hedge funds will not prevent them from supporting the small and medium business sector?

Mrs. Roche: I make it my business to have a good relationship will all the banks and to meet them regularly, not only on an individual basis, but collectively, through helpful organisations such as the British Bankers Association.
I think that the relationship between the clearing banks and small businesses is better now than it has been in the past. The message that I try to get across is that small businesses are operating in a climate in which they must be really competitive to win support. The banks seem to be increasingly aware of the importance of the SME market, but I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's remarks to them when I meet them again.
As finance is a key issue, we are working with the venture capital industry, and through the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts, to get to grips with the problems involved in obtaining small amounts of investment capital. Finance is, of course, especially important to small technology-based companies.

Mr. Brian White: Many firms want to bring an idea to, as it were, the pre-development stage before venture capitalists have invested in it. Other countries have learnt the lesson, and invested at that stage. Are the British Government considering doing the same?

Mrs. Roche: We are examining the possibilities with interest. We do not think that there is any one solution to what is clearly a problem. This is a great country for ideas and innovation, but we have slipped up in the past, in that there has been a gap between creativity and bringing good ideas to commercial fruition. We are talking to the banks and to other financial institutions, and also considering what the Government can add to the contribution of our academic and scientific base.

Ms Moran: I gave the Canadian examples of Canarie and Tara. Have the Government considered adopting their approach? The setting up of an arm's-length private sector company has enhanced business confidence, leading to investment in micro-businesses that are doing innovative work and the provision of venture funds on a loan-share basis, to be repaid over a period.

Mrs. Roche: I believe that my hon. Friend visited Canada through PITCOM—the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee. A few days earlier, I was in Canada representing the United Kingdom at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ministerial meeting to discuss electronic commerce. I was interested to learn that my hon. Friend and other parliamentarians were to visit the country.
We are considering a number of options. We are considering ways in which we can encourage spin-offs, and our attitude to corporate ventures. I have written to some of our top companies about their experience of corporate venturing. There is probably no single solution, but the Government can make a number of contributions in partnership with finance and business.

Mr. Brian Cotter: I am sorry to intervene when there have already been so many


interventions, but does the Minister agree that there is an argument, in the case of small enterprises and enterprises that are trying to get going, for raising the VAT threshold?

Mrs. Roche: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Chancellor announced in his March Budget that there would be consultation to invite views on the desirability of changing the registration thresholds. On 10 July, Customs and Excise published a consultation paper inviting comments on options, to be submitted by 12 October. The responses will help to inform any future Budget decisions on registration thresholds.
We are working with the financial sector to try to assist "new growth" firms. The long-standing small firms loan guarantee scheme continues to offer support to small businesses that lack security or a trading track record. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South pointed out, we have also made tax changes to ensure that businesses keep more of their profits so that they can reinvest and expand. In April next year, for example, the small companies rate of corporation tax will be cut to 20 per cent., the lowest rate ever.
When we were in opposition, we listened a great deal to what small businesses said about what they described as a great barrier to growth—late payment of commercial debt. One of the first things that we did for small firms was to legislate for a statutory right to interest, which will be introduced on 1 November. Along with organisations representing businesses, we are working on a package of measures to tackle the problem of late payment.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister agree that the contribution of organisations such as the Small Business Bureau—whose conference she addressed last week, in my constituency—and the Federation of Small Businesses, among others, has helped Governments of both parties to adapt to the prevailing climate, and the need for legislation? Will she join me in paying tribute to the work of such organisations?

Mrs. Roche: I will do so with pleasure. The organisations that the hon. Gentleman has cited—along with the Forum of Private Business, the Institute of Directors, the British chamber of commerce and others—have made a tremendous contribution. They have given freely of their time to allow us to pursue and consult on our policies. As a Minister, I am personally grateful to them for that high-calibre contribution.
We listened to organisations such as those that I have mentioned when they told us that business was being strangled by red tape and the over-zealous enforcement of regulations. That is why we have created a one-stop shop on the Internet—direct access Government—to provide businesses with guidance and the forms they need to comply with regulation.
In the last Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a package of measures to simplify rules and to help business to comply, including a payroll assistance scheme to help new employers. That, combined with the merging of the Department of Social Security's Contributions Agency with the Inland Revenue in April 1999, should further ease the regulatory burden on business.
Where we have introduced new legislation to protect consumers or to ensure that employees are treated fairly, we have taken steps to ensure that the burdens on business are kept to a minimum. That is key—to get the balance absolutely right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South rightly spoke about the role of training and development. Business owners and managers know that their workers are their greatest resource. The more successful a firm, the more likely it is to invest in training. We are working with businesses to help them to develop their own and their employees' skills and potential. Small firms training loans help firms to provide training when it is needed—often at a crucial phase in expansion—without having to wait until they can afford further capital outlay. It is encouraging to note the number of smaller businesses participating in modern apprenticeships and national traineeships. That is why we have placed such emphasis on those particular sectors.
Rightly, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South mentioned the importance of the university for industry and the particular advantage that that can bring to small and medium enterprises. We have used communication and information technologies to develop a new sort of organisation—the university for industry—to stimulate the demand for learning among businesses and individuals, and to improve the availability of and access to high-quality education and training. That will enable the small firm that finds it difficult to allow its employees to go away from their place of work to take advantage of what is on offer. We are also seeing a realisation among employees and employers alike that, if we are to be truly competitive into the next century, the key is a highly skilled, highly motivated work force.
Businesses constantly tell us that, to grow, they need high-quality information and advice. That is where partnership is so important; indeed, that was something to which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South referred. As all hon. Members will know, Business Links is the network of national partnerships in England that provides a single access point to businesses of all sizes and in all sectors, offering them help and information at all stages of their growth.
Last October, I launched "Enhanced Business Links: A Vision for the 21st century." That is intended to ensure that all those involved in Business Links will raise the quality of business support to the best standard. That means focusing on the needs of customers to ensure that Business Links reaches its full potential, which in turn will enable its business customers to grow and to compete in the global market.
Rightly, in her speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South spoke about the importance of new technology for small and medium enterprises. I absolutely reassure her that the Government want small businesses, whatever sector they are involved in, to take advantage of the new technology. All the benchmarking that the Government have done recently, which compares our performance against that of our major competitors internationally, shows that the United Kingdom is doing pretty well in the use of new technology.
That does not mean that we cannot do better. We can and we will—we certainly aim to do so—but there is still too wide a gap between large firms and small and medium


enterprises. As we look at our competitiveness, a key aim of the Government is to bridge that gap, and we are working hard to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South mentioned the programme for business and local support centres; we have increased them. We know that giving small business the hands-on experience of using new technology can be beneficial. We also appreciate that, if people are running their own small business, they often do not have the time to use the technology that they have to its fullest extent. That is why we are committed to ensuring that we can give them the experience of doing so.
The key thing that we have to get across to those businesses is that the changes in the next few years, with electronic commerce coming on stream, will mean that all business, whatever its size, will have to embrace the new technology. That is a challenge to the industry as well: to make the technology as consumer and business friendly as possible.

Mr. Cotter: What specific training will there be for smaller businesses when it comes to the use of electronic communication such as the internet, as they are at some disadvantage against larger concerns?

Mrs. Roche: There is already the programme for business, which looks at the use of information technology. As I have said, just a couple of weeks ago, I represented the UK at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ministerial conference in Ottawa. We are looking to see how we can help small business in that regard, but the key thing is that, in future—I will probably put myself out of a job—we shall probably not define firms any more in terms of small,

medium and large, but only by how best they compete in the marketplace using new technologies. That is why schemes such as SMART, the small firms merit award for research and technology, the innovation and technology counsellors in Business Links and the teaching company scheme are so important—to ensure that we really meet those challenges.
Businesses have to prepare themselves for some challenges in the next few weeks and months. Whether the UK is in or out of the European monetary union, businesses will have to learn to deal with the single currency. The year 2000 problem, the so-called millennium bug, also has to be faced, which is why the Government have invested so much time, money and effort in the matter. Of course, the setting up of Action 2000, specifically working with business, is so important in that regard.
All British firms that trade with the 11 European member states that will have a single currency from 1 January next year will be affected by European monetary union, so we have a duty to ensure that those firms are as prepared as they possibly can be to take advantage of the opportunities that that will bring.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South has raised this important subject and recognises the importance of creating an environment that encourages entrepreneurial activity. I again congratulate her on her work in her constituency on the issue, thank her for, so early on in this new Session, giving me the opportunity to speak about the Government's plans in this sector and assure her and the House that enterprise will be at the heart of the competitiveness White Paper which will be published by the Government this autumn. I congratulate her again. The contributions that we have received from hon. Members on both sides of the House demonstrate the importance of this vital topic.

Lieutenant-Colonel Miller

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Although this case concerns my constituent, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, I shall be urging the Minister to regard it as a matter that goes much wider than one individual case. I believe that the case raises points of general principle.
The history of the matter is somewhat complex—it is certainly a long-running saga. Nevertheless, it is important to realise that, in taking up Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's case, both I and my predecessor, Sir Michael Grylls, have believed in the strength of Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's case for recognition of the significance of his work in developing the most important and pioneering bomb disposal equipment that the tragedies of Northern Ireland have seen.
The general principle is that those who are serving officers who invent equipment that is well beyond the scope of their normal duties should be recognised for that work. I have mentioned in the title of this debate, which appears on today's Order Paper, the "Committee on Awards to Inventors". Today, I should like specifically to deal with the judgment of that committee and of current Ministers on the principles under which that committee operates.
I start by praying in aid the correspondence that I have seen from those, other than Lieutenant-Colonel Miller himself writing about his case, who have personal experience of the importance of the development of Wheelbarrow. I am delighted that my hon. Friends who have extensive experience in Ulster—as a serving officer, in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), and as a Minister, in the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley)—have come into the Chamber to give their support.
I should like first to mention a gentleman whom I shall not name, because of sensitivity about the names of those who served in Ulster in defusing terrorist bombs. It is sufficient to say that not only is he a Member of the Order of the British Empire, he has won the George medal once and then a bar to that George medal.
In a letter to my predecessor, Sir Michael Grylls, that gentleman states:
My credentials for writing in support of Col. Miller's application to the Committee on Awards to Inventors (COATI) are 23 years in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps (now the Royal Logistics Corps) working solely in the field of explosives and munitions. I joined the Metropolitan Police Explosives Officers in 1973 and became head of that department in 1985 until my retirement in December 1991. I was awarded a George Medal for my bomb disposal work in Northern Ireland, an MBE for gallantry for defusing car bombs in London and a Bar to the George Medal for making safe a device in Oxford Street in 1981.
He is clearly a gentleman who speaks from extensive experience. Moreover, he continues to work on explosives ordnance disposal in retirement.
The gentleman goes on to say:
I first met Col. Miller in 1972 during my tour of duty as an EOD"—
explosives ordnance disposal—
Officer in Belfast. As you may know, 1972 was a particularly conspicuous year so far as terrorist bombs were concerned and, during that year, the EOD teams in Northern Ireland dealt with 4,295 incidents involving the use of explosives or suspected explosives.

Between January 1971 and August 1972, eight EOD operators were killed while attempting to defuse bombs in Northern Ireland. Wheelbarrow"—
the piece of equipment invented by my constituent—
was first brought into use in late August 1972 and, in the period September 1972-December 1973, only three operators died. This downward trend in mortality of EOD Officers has continued to the present day and, despite the relatively high level of terrorist bombing, only one operator has been killed in the last seven years. Although it is impossible to state categorically that the dramatic reduction in loss of lives and casualties is solely due to the introduction of Wheelbarrow, there is no doubt the machine played—and continues to play—a major role. In my opinion these figures alone bear testimony to the exceptional and life-saving nature of Col. Miller's invention. It has also led to radical changes in bomb disposal methods which, in turn, have resulted in terrorists changing their tactics.
The difficulties being experienced by the troops on the ground in Northern Ireland during 1972 was mentioned 'in passing' by the Chief Ammunition Technical Officer (CATO) to Col. Miller. Col. Miller went away, put on his thinking cap and, largely in his own spare time, developed Wheelbarrow and produced several prototypes.
I should say that the genesis of the concept of Wheelbarrow occurred well before any conversation about the need for a new device in Northern Ireland. In 1970, my constituent had invented a technique for mowing the lawn at his own house by remote control. He attached a Suffolk Punch petrol-driven lawn mower by a long lanyard to a central post of such a diameter that the 14 in lawn mower would generate a 12 in cut in the lawn. He was also able to steer the machine by hand at the end of the lanyard.
The other matter that I should mention is that it has consistently been suggested by Ministry of Defence officials that my constituent, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, was "paid to invent", and that therefore the development of Wheelbarrow was part of his "normal duties". That aspect of the matter is the one that most irritates and annoys Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, as his work was as a gunnery trials officer. He did much distinguished work developing gunnery equipment. However, by no stretch of the imagination could a gunnery trials officer have had it regarded as part of his normal duties to develop a bomb disposal vehicle equipment. I shall, later in my speech, provide supporting testimony on that matter.
The gentleman went on to say:
I understand that one of COATI's objections to granting an award to Col. Miller is that inventing was part of his job. That is certainly not my experience of Trials Officers. In fact, I cannot think of another Trials Officer at MVEE (now Test and Evaluation Establishment) Chertsey who has invented anything, either then or since, let alone an invention as ground-breaking as Wheelbarrow.
Wheelbarrow was—and still is—a pioneering piece of equipment. It has contributed greatly to British exports over the years in that numerous foreign governments and organisations, recognising Wheelbarrow's use and technical achievement, have purchased many hundreds of the machines. I believe this is further evidence of the fact that Col. Miller 'got it right'."

Sir John Stanley: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Is he aware that I believe, certainly from my time both as Minister for the Armed Forces and in Northern Ireland, that Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's Wheelbarrow invention is the single most important breakthrough in bomb disposal technology that has been achieved anywhere in the world


since the second world war? It has been of the most profound benefit to our own country in securing the removal of bombs in a manner that does not endanger life.

Mr. Hawkins: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, who speaks from his extensive experience as a former Northern Ireland Minister. I know that my constituent will be delighted to hear his words. I am sure that the Minister and the Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), will take his comments very seriously.
The gentleman went on to say:
It is of great personal regret that Wheelbarrow has not been acknowledged as an invention of singular brilliance. Several friends of mine died in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorist bombs prior to the invention of Wheelbarrow. Obviously, I cannot say for certain that these friends would have lived if Wheelbarrow had been around, but I can assuredly say they would have stood a far better chance.
Prior to 1972, terrorist devices could be made safe only by dismantling them by hand. This was recognised as a very dangerous practice but there was no other reliable method. Then, in the early part of 1972, a new method of terrorist bomb disposal was introduced. In basic terms, this relied on disrupting the circuitry of a bomb by means of an explosively-propelled jet of water. The technique is known as 'disruption' and the first British disruptor was codenamed Pigstick'. It was highly successful and gave the EOD operator a very good chance of defeating a bomb no matter how complex the fusing system or how many anti-handling devices it incorporated.
Unfortunately, the Pigstick is an extremely short-range weapon and, to be effective, the muzzle must be placed within 3 ins of the bomb. This meant, of course, that the EOD operators still had to approach the bomb to place the Pigstick.
The gentleman states that terrorists
soon recognised—and exploited—this weakness and changed their tactics in two ways:

1. Hand-delivered bombs were fitted with time fuses which were set to expire around the time of arrival of the EOD operator on the scene.
2. The use of car bombs increased dramatically as"

terrorists
realised that the Pigstick was virtually useless against such bombs.
The danger from the hand-delivered bomb was largely overcome by regulation insisting on long soak times. This reduced the risk to operators but it meant that virtually all hand-delivered bombs exploded and hoax calls caused huge disruption.
The major problem, however, was that of car bombs. These normally contain very large charges of explosive and are capable of causing death, injuries and damage over considerable areas. Moreover, as the car bombs of that period could not be disrupted by Pigstick",
terrorists
continued to fit the cars with anti-handling devices.
Although there was no clear idea of how to tackle a car bomb it was realised that the ability to safely move a suspect vehicle would be a great advantage. Blast overpressure resulting from a detonation of a charge of explosive falls off very rapidly as the distance from the seat of the explosion increases and moving a car bomb just 10 metres could make the difference between major structural damage and nothing more than broken windows. Various agencies were approached for help and although the problem was addressed with enthusiasm the early results were disappointing … although the machines came in a great variety of shapes and sizes, they all had one common failing—they were totally impractical for use outside a workshop and were often of hindrance rather than help to EOD officers.
Col. Miller put his mind to the matter and the first Wheelbarrow was conceived and delivered in a remarkably short time. This machine was eminently practical, very reliable and cheap and it

dramatically reduced the odds against the EOD man. It may well be viewed now that the early machines were simple but … in 1972, on the streets of Northern Ireland, the invention was definitely considered to be of exceptional brilliance and utility.
With a reliable, easy-to-use robot vehicle available, it became possible for EOD operators to attach tow ropes to suspect cars in relative safety. Once a tow rope had been attached it was a simple matter to pull the suspect vehicle to a position where, should the car bomb explode, it would be less likely to cause injuries or major damage to property. Towing the suspect vehicle away from the target was undoubtedly a great help but it still left the EOD operator with the problem of making the vehicle safe. Having been told of the problem, Col Miller designed and developed a range of attachments which enabled Wheelbarrow to carry and position various disruptive EOD weapons. In use, the Wheelbarrow carried the selected weapon to the vehicle, placed the weapon in the optimum attack position before withdrawing to a safe area.
Judged by today's standards, the methods of delivery and the weapons might be thought crude but they were surprisingly successful and, for the first time, it became possible to render safe a car bomb without endangering the life of an EOD operator.
Having done much to help reduce the dangers presented by car bombs, Col Miller then devised a method of attaching Pigstick to Wheelbarrow. This too was a success and it became possible to safely attack a hand-delivered bomb within minutes of the EOD operator arriving on the scene of an incident. There is no doubt the ability to render-safe time bombs using the Wheelbarrow/Pigstick combination was a huge step forward compared to the previous practice of 'soak times' which allowed the majority of the devices to detonate.
As will be seen from above, the introduction of Wheelbarrow had profound effects on both terrorist tactics and the safety of bomb disposal operators. It is impossible to give hard and fast statistics regarding just how many lives Col Miller's machines have saved but, in the period 1972–1978, and taking into account machines which had been exported, over 400 Wheelbarrows were destroyed while dealing with terrorist devices. In many of these cases, it can be assumed that the loss of a machine represented the saving of an EOD man's life.
Having heard that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will understand why I feel very strongly that my constituent deserves the recognition that he has been denied.
Very belatedly—in 1996—officials finally acknowledged in writing to my predecessor that there was no question but that Lieutenant Colonel Miller's invention was of enormous use. Unfortunately, despite that acknowledgement, it was still not regarded as being outside the scope of his normal duties. Before I ask the Minister to respond to this serious issue, I shall provide other supporting testimony which shows that the invention was outside his normal duties.
The following testimony comes from a gentleman who held the rank of brigadier—again, I shall not mention his name for obvious reasons—and who was a deputy director and head of the Trials Division. He states:
No formal order was ever given to Lieutenant Colonel Miller but, after failing to find an answer to the problem using existing equipment and techniques he turned, relying on his own initiative and imagination, to outside sources and came up with an electrically powered garden instrument produced by a local firm. This he took and adapted, uniquely and ingeniously, to become the prototype of the anti-terrorist weapon known as `Wheelbarrow' which has been so successfully and spectacularly used in Northern Ireland.
Fortunate in having at his disposal in the Military Vehicles and Engineering Establishment, the facilities to develop and test his ideas, the whole concept nevertheless, starting from an imprecise requirement, culminated in an ingeniously practical machine which was undoubtedly the fruit of Lieutenant Colonel Miller's fertile imagination and determination to succeed.


I now cite another gentleman who was greatly involved. He was a chartered engineer and a member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. He states:
During our discussion, I mentioned the fact that had we"—
those in his division—
been told in March of 1972 that Weapons Trials"—
the department for which Lieutenant-Colonel Miller worked—
was about to develop a wheeled or tracked vehicle to meet a specific IS requirement under the terms of the GSOR, we would certainly have objected, through the proper channels, to that action. It would certainly not have been within the scope of Weapons Trials objectives to embark on such a course of action. The divisions of responsibility between the various Branches as they were then called, were quite clearly defined; and no doubt they still are to-day albeit since becoming a Defence Research Agency".
Writing to Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, this senior gentleman said:
As I have said before, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind as to the true origin of 'Wheelbarrow'; that was clearly and unequivocally to your credit and yours alone.
All the correspondence that I have seen says the same.
Another retired officer states:
I can confirm that, prior to and during the initial development work on Wheelbarrow, while I was Superintendent, Weapon Trials, there was no duty placed upon the Section to design or develop any form of wheeled or tracked vehicle, for EOD or any other purpose, and I cannot recall such activities being written into the Job Descriptions of any member of my staff.
I well remember at the time you telling me that the idea for Wheelbarrow had arisen from your private efforts to produce a labour saving method for mowing your extensive lawn.
If it had been within the jurisdiction of Weapon Trials to design and develop such a vehicle, I would have expected that the work on Wheelbarrow would have remained the responsibility of the Section … instead of being passed over to VE(L) … just at a time when the initial concept had been fully vindicated".
Referring to officials' suggestion that Lieutenant-Colonel Miller was paid to invent the Wheelbarrow, another senior person stated:
There was no scope for invention by a Trials Design Officer (`TDO') within the TS"—
or trials specification. He continued:
neither is there reference in the job description for a TDO `to invent'. Hence the comment that Col Miller was 'paid to invent' is, in my opinion, erroneous.
I could say far more. Given that we are talking about a vital piece of bomb disposal equipment that has saved hundreds of lives, not only in the Province but around the world, proper recognition for the gentleman who invented it is long overdue. After the long saga of the issue having been raised by my predecessor and now by me, it is time, for the sake of other officers who may come up with life-saving or otherwise helpful equipment, for the Committee on Awards to Inventors to recognise my constituent's claim.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Let me make it clear at the outset that while there is clearly no case for a monetary award to Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, his work, that of his team—the Motor Vehicles and Engineering

Establishment—and of others who contributed to the success of the Wheelbarrow bomb disposal vehicle is fully recognised and appreciated by the Ministry of Defence. That work has without question saved many lives and the destruction of much property, as was well described by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). However, we are today dealing with the question whether the hon. Gentleman's constituent qualifies for an award from the Committee on Awards to Inventors.
As has been made clear, this case relates to events which took place more than 25 years ago. In 1973, the Department's Committee on Awards to Inventors, known as COATI, a body that was set up many years before to make discretionary awards for inventions produced by civilian and military personnel, received an application for an award from Lieutenant-Colonel Miller for Wheelbarrow.
By that time, COATI had considered and made awards for inventions ranging from gas turbines to electronics and covering chemical, electrical and mechanical inventions. COATI was staffed by experienced people including patent agents and by others with scientific, engineering or legal backgrounds. There is no doubt that COATI was a well-run and properly staffed committee which had the right expertise and the right qualifications. It had to make difficult decisions within the terms of reference that it had been set. It had been given, and had to maintain, standards to help it to determine whether an award should be made and, if so, the right and proper amount of that award.
All COATI awards were and, indeed, are made on an ex gratia basis at the absolute discretion of the Department. There is no formal entitlement to an award, and it is exceptional to have a case reconsidered by COATI.
Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's first application to COATI was made in 1973 through his establishment at Chertsey, the Military Vehicles and Engineering Establishment, known as the MVEE. The application for an award for the Wheelbarrow invention was made by Lieutenant-Colonel Miller and members of MVEE workshop staff, and considered on three different occasions by COATI. As I said, that was fairly unprecedented.
The committee was strongly of the view that the work on Wheelbarrow appeared to be in response to an official requirement and was no more than might have been expected by the individuals concerned. Lieutenant-Colonel Miller was status-barred by reason of his positions at MVEE from receiving any financial award as he was carrying out work that he was paid to do, and the invention, although useful, and vital, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath aptly described it in introducing the debate, was not considered to be of exceptional utility and exceptional brilliance. In other words, it had to meet both those criteria.
The applications by the workshop staff were referred back to a local committee for consideration of local awards which were made. Undoubtedly, the work that was done by Lieutenant-Colonel Miller and his team at the time was important and was to have a significant effect on bomb disposal, particularly in Northern Ireland.
The application was considered further by COATI in April 1975 and it was decided that, as a member of the professional and scientific class who could well have been


expected to make inventions in his field of work, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller was not eligible for an award. I repeat that further consideration is unusual.
The matter was considered a third time on 24 July 1975, when COATI had the benefit of advice from one of the deputy controllers of establishments and research and the director of MVEE, who were of the view that no award was appropriate because of Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's position at the time and the duties that he was being paid to carry out. On that basis, once again, COATI concluded that no award should be made.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Having heard the account by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and having read his brief, the Minister clearly must have reached a personal judgment about the merits of the case. Perhaps we could hear his personal judgment as to whether an invention that has saved so many lives is worth an award.

Mr. Spellar: We charge those on the committee with the relevant technical expertise with making those decisions, which should not be overridden by ministerial judgment. I am not technically qualified to make a judgment as to whether an invention is of exceptional utility and of exceptional brilliance. That is a matter for professional judgment.

Mr. Keith Simpson: Churchill did.

Mr. Spellar: We sometimes hear some interesting interventions from the hon. Gentleman. As he should know, having been on the payroll of the Ministry of Defence, we have proper committees to deal with such matters, and this case has been reconsidered. It has also been considered by a number of Ministers, as I shall explain in a moment. I do not remember whether Churchill dealt with the case of Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, but I bow to the knowledge of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson). [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The sedentary comments by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) are now becoming disruptive.

Mr. Spellar: A few years later, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller decided to make a direct application to COATI for an award. His words at the time were:
As far as I am aware the fully story was not revealed. I feel therefore, in justice to myself, that I should submit the whole story as I saw it.
The second application gave further details of Wheelbarrow and ran to some 31 pages with accompanying photographs of various marks of Wheelbarrow. It represented a complete description of his work, and the whole text was considered by the committee in the light of his previous application.
The committee once again concluded that no award should be made because he was status-barred at the time he carried out his work on Wheelbarrow. The committee, which had great experience in such matters, concluded that his work on Wheelbarrow was work that would have been expected by an officer at that level and in the circumstances that prevailed at the time. That is not to

say that the committee disagreed with Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's version of events, but considered that his status was a bar to an award.
In between the two applications for an award for Wheelbarrow, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller discussed his application with his Member of Parliament at the time, Michael Grylls, who wrote on his behalf to the then Minister of State for Defence, Dr. John Gilbert. His reply was that Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's case had been considered with great care by COATI, and that a Crown servant employed and paid to carry out research and development work is not eligible for an award unless his invention displays exceptional brilliance and exceptional utility.

Mr. Hawkins: Does the Minister recognise the intense frustration on the part of my constituent? It appears to me that the basic misunderstanding that the invention was part of his normal work led to all the subsequent rejections. What is happening again today as the Minister reads out his prepared brief is a repeat of the same answer which the independent testimony of the officers involved completely undermines. That is what is so frustrating for my constituent. It is a factual error.

Mr. Spellar: Many of our constituents are frustrated. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. In this instance, the Department believes that the committee is right and the individual constituent is wrong.
As hon. Members will remember, COATI awards are made on an ex gratia basis at the absolute discretion of the Department. However, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller persisted and wrote again to his Member of Parliament, Mr. Michael Grylls, who wrote to the Department. The then Minister of State for Defence, Lord Strathcona, replied that the claim had been considered long and hard at the time and a judgment made that it did not meet the stringent criteria laid down. It is understood that, by 1980, Mr. Grylls was satisfied that the matter had been fully considered.
I would add that the exchange of correspondence and the detailed consideration by Ministers of both parties and by officials over the past 20 years was unprecedented. I find it slightly surprising that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), who served as a Minister in the Department at the time, and other hon. Members who were on the payroll of the Department should appear in the Chamber today. The case has been fully considered, and exceptionally so. No other COATI case has been given such detailed consideration by so many individuals, including COATI members, the director and other staff of MOD's directorate of intellectual property rights and the director-general of contracts.
In 1996, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller again asked his Member of Parliament, by then Sir Michael Grylls, to take up the matter with the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). A meeting was arranged, and it was concluded that no new information of significance had come to light that would warrant reopening the case. We believe that still to be the position today. However, the 1997 election brought a new Member for Surrey Heath, and, as hon. Members realise, this often leads to a temporary burst of old cases. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman


was approached by Lieutenant-Colonel Miller and has been in correspondence with my right hon. Friend Lord Gilbert, who has been reincarnated as Minister of State for Defence Procurement.
It is important to note that, at the time the applications for an award were made by Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, the COATI rules required that, if the inventor was status-barred, as was the case with Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, an award could be made only if the invention was of exceptional utility and exceptional brilliance. The committee looked carefully at the invention on several occasions and, in the light of its experience, decided that it did not qualify. It did not meet the criteria by which other inventions were judged.
The Department has dealt with Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's claims for an award with great patience and forbearance over a long period. We are satisfied that the matter has been dealt with properly and fairly. There is no evidence that leads us to believe otherwise. We cannot arbitrarily and retrospectively change the rules. That would be unfair to all the other applicants over the years who have not qualified for a COATI award. That has been made clear to Lieutenant-Colonel Miller and to his current and previous Members of Parliament. We believe that the case should be laid to rest.

SARP (UK) Ltd.

Mr. Harry Barnes: There have been two major incidents of clouds of acid vapour escaping from SARP (UK) Ltd. at Killamarsh in my constituency. They presented considerable and serious dangers to the residents of Killamarsh and the surrounding built-up areas, including parts of the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). The plant is situated close to housing and within a few hundred yards of a junior school. It is also on the border of the Rother Valley country park—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley in the Chamber—which is used by thousands of people.
The first incident occurred on 14 May. I explained the events in detail to the House in a speech on 20 May. I shall not repeat the points that I made then, not least because the case is being placed before the courts in a prosecution by the Environment Agency. However, I should like to place on record details of the second major incident and subsequent events before making some general comments. Although the matters that I shall refer to are under investigation by the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency, no official reports or prosecutions on them have yet seen the light of day. In the absence of such prosecutions, I am free to speak about the issues.
The second major incident took place on 30 May. I visited the site soon after, and met local residents. I have not been able to inform the House of the second incident until now, having been out of parliamentary action from 4 June because of a stroke. Apart from the short recall of Parliament following the tragedy at Omagh, the House has not met for 12 weeks.
However, I raised the issue through early-day motion 1385 on 3 June, and presented a petition to the House on 24 July on behalf of 7,000 residents in north-east Derbyshire, Killamarsh, Rother Valley and Sheffield, Attercliffe—my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe is also in his place. I should like to mention on the record the help that I obtained from my agent Bob Harper and other Labour party members in the Killamarsh area during my illness and subsequently.
The SARP plant at Killamarsh is a chemical reclamation plant. At its acid-alkali treatment plant, there were four storage tanks surrounded by a concrete bund near the base. On 30 May, one of the tanks collapsed, with two thirds of its sides immediately disintegrating. The tank contained nine tonnes of liquids, 26 per cent. of the contents being nitric acid.
As the liquid, including considerable amounts of acid, fell into the bund, a huge orange cloud of acid vapour rose and escaped. The atmospheric conditions were poor and the acid cloud moved back to the site and its vicinity before slowly dispersing. Firefighters who went to tackle the toxic spill were initially refused entry to the plant on the grounds that the matter was under control, even though the plant's fire hose, which had been found to be defective on 14 May, had not been put right by 30 May.
That second major incident, just 16 days after the first escape of acid vapour from a tanker, had a dramatic impact on officialdom, the local communities and SARP.
The authorities—the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency—set up investigations into that further major incident, and embarked on a full audit of all the processes at the plant.
The reaction of the communities in Killamarsh and surrounding areas was dramatic. Everyone had had enough, and demanded the removal of the plant to a site away from areas of population. A residents committee was formed, known as RASP—an anagram of SARP that stands for Residents Against SARP Pollution. It has persistently campaigned for the closure of the plant in dramatic style, including a visit to SARP's parent company, Vivendi in Paris—a multinational that is embarrassed because it likes to portray itself as environmentally friendly.
The parish council, the district council, the local county councillor Alan Charles and the three Members of Parliament have all made vigorous representations to my right hon. Friend Minister for the Environment. We are all thankful to my right hon. Friend for visiting SARP and meeting representatives of RASP and the councils in Killamarsh on 29 July. However, the determination of the residents did not come out of the blue. It has built up over a long period, which included an explosion at the site in 1986, when the plant was run by Leigh Environmentals.
I took a deputation to meet the Minister for small firms, Mr. David Trippier, even though I was not a Member of Parliament at the time. That deputation was made up of local councillors and representatives of KRAC—the Killamarsh Residents Action Committee. I placed details of those and further serious matters before the House when I became a Member of Parliament, most notably in an Adjournment debate on 28 February 1990. There had been the additional possibility of the infamous Karen B being brought to this country, with materials from it being likely to go to the Killamarsh site.
Astonishingly, although SARP has been under constant supervision by the Killamarsh community since the second incident, it has failed to get its act together. A catalogue of incidents has been unearthed. On the day of my right hon. Friend's visit to Killamarsh, it was discovered that barrels of rocket fuel were stored close to the local junior school. My right hon. Friend will remember his visit to the school playing field, with the SARP site starkly nearby.
The consignment of rocket fuel came in 1,507 drums in 20 deliveries between 1993 and 1995. Of those, 184 were left to deteriorate and had to be stored under water. Some of the remaining drums were incinerated, while others remain in storage on the site. I know that my right hon. Friend is concerned about the matter, which is under investigation by the Environment Agency, as are another five incidents.
First, waste was left on the ground, with serious smells affecting the community, when an old storage tank was being cleaned out. Secondly, substantial off site odours were caused following leachate recycling. Thirdly, 20 tonnes of slurry were dumped on a landfill site. There are questions as to how that met the provisions of the waste disposal licence. Fourthly, the recirculation of effluent in storage tanks caused serious smells. Fifthly, a gas scrubber was not properly maintained, leading to a further inability to remove smells from waste.
There have been numerous other incidents, such as the sample bottles of aniline carried from Killamarsh to Teesside by TNT that leaked en route. The material is

hazardous, and causes skin and eye irritation. TNT was not informed of the contents of the bottles. Past carbon monoxide releases from the incinerator have also been found not to have complied with the licence. Then a tanker started to leave the site, although a worker was still on top of it.
In addition to the responses of officialdom and the community, and because of them, SARP has had to react. It closed down the six chemical reclamation processes at the plant following the incident on 30 May. Although the company attempted to restart the secondary liquid fuel plant within 48 hours, it backed off when I objected to the Health and Safety Executive. On 18 June, however, as I was leaving hospital, the process was reopened—not least because it accounts for 48 per cent. of SARP's turnover on the site. The other processes have remained closed down—20 weeks after the tank collapsed.
SARP has announced its intention to transfer its acid plant, oil plant and transport depot from Killamarsh, while reducing the number of drums on site, including the rocket fuel. It claimed to me that that will involve the end of emissions into sewers, which have caused major unrest in the area for years. I welcome SARP's belated recognition that too many processes operate on the site, and appreciate that employees need to be fully consulted about transfer arrangements, as they will affect half the 110 jobs on the site.
SARP's proposals still leave us with the secondary fuel plant in operation, and would involve the reopening of the incinerator and the solvent recovery plant. We are awaiting the outcome of the reports of the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency, including the audit of the plant. Those could lead to SARP having to remove more, or even all, of the operations from Killamarsh. I am therefore keen that the official reports into incidents should be completed as soon as possible and put into the public domain. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to respond specifically to that point.
I am also concerned about whether highly critical reports of SARP will be enough to prompt the authorities to take action to close down SARP's remaining processes. A House of Commons Library briefing tells me that, under part 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990,
local authorities are statutorily obliged to include conditions in any authorisations they issue which are designed to ensure that the process is operated under the Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost … to prevent and minimise emissions of prescribed substances and to render harmless any substance that may be emitted … local authorities can issue enforcement, variation, prohibition and revocation notices to ensure that appropriate standards of control are met, and raised in line with new techniques and new awareness of environmental risk. Prohibition notices are a mechanism for stopping a process if there is an imminent risk of serious pollution of the environment.
Will fresh legislation be needed to strengthen such provisions so that the experiences of the long-suffering residents of Killamarsh may come to shape legislation that will have a wider application in protection against industrial pollution?
A series of reports is being prepared about SARP's operation at Killamarsh. The Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency are conducting three major reports—plus six other investigations, which I have described. SARP commissioned a report by W. S. Atkins after the first incident; it has not seen the light of day. The company is going on to commission a unit at Sheffield


university to produce a further report, and the area's Member of the European Parliament is undertaking his own inquiry. RASP has been first off the blocks and has published a report. In fact, SARP has responded to it—it was published yesterday—in a four-page fax to me. That response is somewhat more speedy than the emergence of the reports that it has commissioned.
It is essential that the mountain of paperwork produces results. After all, actions speak louder than wordy surveys. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to the points that I have placed on record, especially in connection with the availability of reports and whether consideration has been given to improvements in environmental protection legislation in order to ensure that the type of problems that have for so long occurred in Killamarsh begin to be solved—not just there but in other communities.

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has secured a debate on this important subject. I pay him a very great tribute for the extremely thorough and persistent manner in which he has pursued this serious case—not least because, as he said, in the middle of the events, he was struck down by illness. I know that I speak for everyone present when I say that we are delighted to see him again fully active, in pursuit of these matters with all his accustomed vigour.
I should express my real and unreserved sympathy and concern for the Killamarsh residents' worry and anger about the two occurrences that my hon. Friend has described. As he said, I have taken the opportunity to visit the plant in order to see for myself at first hand what has led to the concerns. I want to put on record how tremendously impressed I was by the poignant and forceful manner in which members of Residents Against SARP Pollution presented their case. It made a very big impression on me.
Having said that, I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand why I cannot comment on the two specific incidents on the SARP site—not least because it would involve a discussion of matters that are before the courts. Another key constraint that prevents me from discussing the specific issues is that activities at the site are subject to waste management licensing. The Secretary of State exercises a quasi-judicial role in relation to appeals by waste management licence holders or applicants against licensing decisions made by the Environment Agency. I therefore cannot comment on any individual case that may become the subject of one of those appeals. Having said that, I shall still do everything I can to deal with the issues raised.
As my hon. Friend said, the Killamarsh site is a waste treatment site which has been in operation for several years. At the end of last year, its operation was taken over by SARP (UK) Ltd. To be fair, the company inherited a legacy left by the previous owners and operators of the site. None the less, the legal responsibility for the two incidents in May and other concerns rests with SARP.
As a result of investigations by the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency into the first incident on 14 May, SARP (UK) Ltd has been charged

with contravention of section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, regulation 10 of the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Regulations 1996, and section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
The other incident took place on 30 May. A Health and Safety Executive inspector attended the site on the day of the incident, where he met my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire and several parish councillors. He advised that, following the investigation of the incident and the previous one, there would be a comprehensive inspection and audit of all activities carried out on the site. The investigation into the second incident is highly complex, and may yet take several more weeks before it is concluded.
Several key actions have been taken since the very regrettable incidents in May.
First, an off-site safety plan is now being developed by SARP in co-operation with the local emergency authorities. Secondly, all processes on the site were suspended following the incident. Some have restarted to a limited extent, following detailed audits by HSE and the other authorities. Others, including the acid plant that was responsible for the incidents, have been closed down permanently.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend asked about publication of the HSE audit, and I am glad to say that it will be made public in full. Fourthly, SARP has appointed Sheffield university's environmental consultancy to undertake a full and independent audit of the site. The recommendations of that will be published, and SARP has committed itself publicly to implementing them all. Fifthly, HSE and the Environment Agency continue to monitor closely the activities on the site, and are co-operating fully with one another.
Such serious incidents raise many issues concerning underlying standards, procedures and systems, and I shall try to deal briefly with the main questions. The waste management licensing system established under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is intended to ensure that waste management activities do not cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health. I note my hon. Friend's lengthy list of the company's alleged breaches of consent.
Anyone who deposits, recovers or disposes of controlled waste without a waste management licence, or contrary to the conditions of a waste management licence, or in a way that causes pollution or harm to health, commits a criminal offence. There are strict penalties for such offences. For example, the maximum penalty for the illegal management of special waste is five years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine.
My hon. Friend asked whether additional legislation was needed. I am happy to reconsider that question, but I do not believe it is. I believe that adequate powers are already there, and it is up to the authorities to exercise them where any of the licence conditions are not met.
The Environment Agency already has extensive powers to take enforcement action against the holder of a waste management licence. It may modify a licence in whatever way is necessary to ensure that it does not cause pollution to the environment or harm to human health, or become seriously detrimental to the amenities of the locality affected by the activities. That is a significant power, and I look to the agency to exercise it.
Where the agency considers that there is an imminent risk of serious pollution, it has a duty to serve a prohibition notice specifying the risk and the steps to be taken to overcome it, and suspending the authorisation for whatever aspects of the operation are causing the risk.
I addition, the agency has the power to revoke an authorization—in effect, to shut down the process—where, for example, there has been persistent failure to comply with conditions. I heard what my hon. Friend said about that. It is, of course, for the agency to decide what action is appropriate in which circumstances. For the reasons that I have already given, I cannot comment on whether it would be appropriate to take action along those lines in the case of the Killamarsh site. I can only repeat that I listened attentively to what my hon. Friend said, and those words too will be noted by the Environment Agency.
I shall now talk about standards regulating tankers. The first incident involved a vacuum-operated waste tanker, and I am aware that my hon. Friend is concerned that standards for tankers may be less rigorous in the United Kingdom than in other European countries. I have looked into the subject, and let me assure him that that is not the case. Regulations for the domestic transport of dangerous goods in all EC member states are essentially harmonised as a result of the ADR framework directive adopted in November 1994.
The introduction into ADR of requirements for vacuum-operated waste tankers has been a United Kingdom initiative, and the adopted text is based primarily on existing UK controls. UK safety requirements for such tankers have therefore been accepted by Europe as the best model for future regulation.

Mr. Barnes: The Minister is aware that, as he told me in a parliamentary answer, there have been about 125 incidents involving leakage from tankers over the past 10 years. I do not believe that, until the incident on 14 May, any of those incidents concerned vehicles operated by Leigh Environmentals or SARP. However, there has since been a second incident involving a SARP tanker, near Grantham, which caused considerable leakage on the M1
Even if we are in line with European standards, it is a matter for consideration whether the regulations on the movement of materials about the country are tight enough. One of the problems is that the first incident at Killamarsh might have happened not on the site but in transit. It was bad enough at the site, but it could have happened in all sorts of more dangerous conditions—either at the origin of the goods being moved or during transit through heavily populated areas.

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. It is true that there have been many instances of

leaks from tankers either in transit or at their destination, as was the case with the first SARP incident. I am concerned about that, and I am asking HSE to investigate whether there is a pattern behind the large number of incidents, and whether there is a case for revision of the regulations.
My understanding is that the regulations are tight and clear, and that the incidents have largely been caused either by human error or by management failure. However, I accept the fact that the number of incidents is sufficiently high to warrant further examination. I will have that undertaken, and will then report to my hon. Friend.
Sheffield council has called for an official public inquiry into the activities on the Killamarsh site. Having been there and talked to the residents in Residents Against SARP Pollution, and having seen how the site is cheek by jowl with the local community, I have every sympathy with that request. However, I have to bear in mind the constraints imposed by the legal proceedings now under way, the impact of which I trust I have made clear. It is very unlikely that any public inquiry could start substantive considerations until the legal proceedings are concluded.
As I have already said, SARP itself has announced that it has appointed Sheffield university's environmental consultancy to undertake a full and independent inquiry into operations at Killamarsh. I have been formally advised that SARP will refocus and simplify operations at the site to make it more manageable. That will include a substantial clean-up of the facility.
As my hon. Friend knows, I have enormous sympathy with the local strength of feeling, and will continue to take a close interest in developments.

Mr. Barnes: I thank the Minister for the nature of his response. I know that he takes the issue seriously. For my 11 years as a Member of Parliament, I have been concerned with the issues surrounding the site, and my right hon. Friend's responses today are much more serious than those that I received from the previous Administration when we were dealing with such problems many years ago.

Mr. Meacher: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I must choose my words carefully here, but I am inclined to say that the previous Government undervalued health and safety issues. The present Government take such issues extremely seriously. Two worrying incidents involving SARP have taken place within a fortnight of each other, and, having listened for several hours to the people who experienced the consequences, I intend to ensure that justice is done.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET OFFICE

The Minister was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Press Officers

Mr. Jim Cousins: What new guidance he has issued to (a) press officers and (b) press advisers of Ministers in departments. [54712]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The values and conventions which govern the work of press officers—both permanent civil servants and special advisers—are set out in guidance on the work of the Government Information Service, published in July 1997.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Government are currently considering a recommendation from the Select Committee on Public Administration for further guidance.

Mr. Cousins: I welcome the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to his new position, where he will display his style, robustness and determination. When the Prime Minister created the new Cabinet Office in July, he made it clear that the head of the Government Information Service would be part of that office, and that the Cabinet Office would be responsible for the overall presentation and corporate management of government and Government policy.
Does my right hon. Friend have the power and the authority under the new regime to ensure that there is no secondary market in information and access to information; that all aspects of government—all facts, policies and debates—will be presented in a proper fashion and that there will be no question of privateering and spin in such matters? Is the ministerial team satisfied that it now has that power?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office will do all within his extensive powers to effect the co-ordination of the development and the presentation of policy across government under the direction of the Prime Minister.
I can also assure my hon. Friend that the head of the Government Information Service is now based in the Cabinet Office, directly answerable to the head of the home civil service. That is part of our stated commitment to make presentation an essential ingredient in the success of the Government. At the heart of our modus operandi is a commitment to ensuring that we have a co-ordinated view on policy and that it is presented robustly, and with strong political guidance.

Sir Peter Emery: Will the Parliamentary Secretary have a word with his right hon. Friend the Minister—whom we congratulate on his appointment—not about press advisers, but about efforts to ensure that press statements are made in this House by the Ministers responsible? Will he ensure that they are not spun out with a lot of words, as we have just heard in the Parly Secretary reply to the previous question?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman considered my answer verbose. It was not intended to be—it was intended to be a full answer to a series of questions. The statements made in the House will continue to be germane to the subject matter.

Sir George Young: On behalf of the Opposition, may I also welcome the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), to his new position and wish him well? No doubt any sadness that he feels at leaving the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be compensated for by the pleasure that he will get from enforcing Government policies on reluctant colleagues.
To revert to the question about the Government Information Service, which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) asked, is it not misleading for the annual report to airbrush out all references to bad news, such as the Bernie Ecclestone affair, the difficulties over Sierra Leone and corruption in local government, to name but three? Would it not be better if the Prime Minister presented his report not in the rose garden at No. 10 before his cronies, but in the Chamber before all hon. Members?

Mr. Kilfoyle: It is a travesty of the situation for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the bad news was airbrushed out. Surely the reality is that there has been so much good news that there has been no time to communicate any bad news.

Oral Answers to Questions — Civil Service

Mr. Keith Vaz: What plans he has to increase awareness of civil service careers among the ethnic minority community. [54715]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The Cabinet Office and other Departments participate fully in workplace development schemes such as the Windsor fellowship, exhibit at careers and other fairs and undertake outreach work with universities. Nine Whitehall Departments, including mine, will next month be promoting civil service careers at the Mega Mela Asian festival at Birmingham, which is expected to attract more than 100,000 visitors. I will shortly be launching with Sir Richard Wilson, the head of the home civil service, a charter for action to redress under-representation of ethnic minorities in the senior civil service. That initiative has been jointly agreed with the civil service unions.

Mr. Vaz: May I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position and also welcome the initiative undertaken by the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, including the appointment of Mr. Suma Chakrabarti, who becomes the most senior Asian person in the civil service? Can I tempt my right hon. Friend to go a step further and take a leaf out of the Home Secretary's book by considering the possibility of initiating a system of targets, so that the civil service is truly representative of modern Britain?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and good wishes. We shall soon publish guidelines on the mainstreaming of equality throughout


the Government. I can assure him that, as Minister for the Cabinet Office, I will play an important role in taking that forward.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Although I welcome the initiative that the right hon. Gentleman has taken to make job and career opportunities in the civil service as wide as possible, and known about by as many people as possible, will he take this opportunity to stress that people will be appointed on merit?

Dr. Cunningham: It is one of our guiding principles that people are always appointed on merit, and that will continue to be the case. Nevertheless, we also need to take more effective action to ensure that the under-representation of people from Asian and ethnic communities in senior civil service posts is redressed.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster accept my sincere congratulations on his new appointment? One of the great joys of the city of Lancaster is its diverse range of people from different cultural backgrounds. At this stage, can my right hon. Friend tell me what part he intends to play in the celebration in that glorious city of the 600th anniversary of the Duchy of Lancaster? Also, will he please reconsider his use of the description, Minister for the Cabinet Office, as it is certainly no less opaque than Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and it lacks a great deal of style as well?

Dr. Cunningham: That would never do. First, I must thank my hon. Friend, who represents the wonderful and ancient city of Lancaster, for his kind remarks and good wishes. Perhaps I should point out to him and the House that I have the honour and privilege of two titles: Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It is only in the interests of brevity that I use the former and not both when addressing the House.
As for the celebrations for the 600th anniversary, I hope to play a part in those, too.

Oral Answers to Questions — Citizens Charter

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: How he monitors (a) the effectiveness and (b) the consistency of citizens charters across Government. [54716]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): To support the launch of the new service first programme, we have made available to all public services comprehensive advice on how to draw up effective charters that best meet the needs of users. We have also created a new team in the service first unit to audit the quality and effectiveness of selected national and local charters. Those new initiatives reflect the Government's commitment to first-class, responsive public services.

Mr. Winterton: I am sure that the Minister accepts that the concept and implementation of the citizens charter were the result of actions taken by the previous Government. Will he also accept that efficiency and all that goes with it will be achieved in the public sector only through the greater involvement of the private sector? Will he turn his attention to the winter fuel payments to

pensioners by the Department of Social Security, so that last year's chaos is not repeated this year and so that my excellent pensioners in Macclesfield enjoy a better and more reliable service?

Mr. Kilfoyle: May I correct the hon. Gentleman's inadvertent misrepresentation? The notion of the citizens charter came from Labour local authorities—specifically York and Nottingham—but we did not mind the previous Government stealing a good idea. His question about winter payments to pensioners should be raised with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

Oral Answers to Questions — Rural Policies

Mr. Peter Luff: What plans he has to improve the ordination of the Government's rural policies; and if he will make a statement. [54718]

Mr. David Winnick: If he will make a statement on the structures for co-ordinating Government policies. [54723]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): My role is to assist my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and ministerial colleagues in the implementation, co-ordination and effective presentation of Government policy. In accordance with the resolution of the House on ministerial accountability made on 19 March 1997, it is for the Ministers to account for the policy decisions and actions of their Departments and next steps agencies. I shall, of course, answer questions on my responsibilities for the work of the Cabinet Office, including the better government agenda, and on my responsibilities as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. Luff: I am sure that the House realises that MAFF's loss is the Cabinet Office's gain, but, bearing in mind the Minister's recently relinquished responsibilities at MAFF; the growing crisis in rural Britain because of the problems facing British agriculture; the direction in which the common agricultural policy is moving; and the large number of Departments that are concerned with rural policy across the whole waterfront of issues, will he not say something a little more constructive in answer to my question?

Dr. Cunningham: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I thought that I was answering his question, which was about my role in the co-ordination and presentation of the Government's policies. He mentions rural areas, and I return his compliment in wishing him well in his continuing role as an effective and constructive Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture. He will know that, following the comprehensive spending review and announcements by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, the Government are paying greater attention and giving more resources to the undoubted problems in rural areas. I know those problems well, because I represent a rural constituency.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not necessary to explain to the country, through the co-ordination of policies, why it is absolutely essential to spend the extra £40 billion on schools and health services? In doing so, should it not also be explained why that money was not made available before the election and why, even now, the Conservative Opposition seem very much opposed to its being spent on education and health?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It would certainly help the House and, I think, the country too, if we had a clear exposition of the Opposition's policies in this area. First, my hon. Friend is right to say that the Government are whole-heartedly committed to providing an extra £21 billion for health and £19 billion for education. The shadow Chancellor says that that is extravagance and that the investment should not be made; Opposition spokesmen on health and education say that it is not enough; and the Leader of the Opposition says nothing at all.

Sir Patrick Cormack: In adding my words of welcome to the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that he will think again about which title he uses in the House. It is good to see the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) in his place. It is typical of his courtesy to the House that he should be here at this particular Question Time.
Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied that the Government are doing everything to address the plight of the farmers, and will he guarantee to the House that he will assist his successor in getting rid of the ban on beef on the bone, which has been his prime achievement to date as an enforcer and which has done a great deal of damage to British agriculture?

Dr. Cunningham: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, and I join him in paying tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). He is not just a right hon. Friend, but a friend. It is a great honour for me to continue the work that he set in train in the Cabinet Office. As for my title, the reality is that the merger of the Office of Public Service and the old Cabinet Office and the new responsibilities that the Prime Minister announced in a written answer to the House on 28 July 1998, at columns 132–34, mean that the overwhelming burden of my responsibilities is to do with the work of the Cabinet Office rather than the Duchy of Lancaster, important though that work will continue to be.
As for co-ordinating policy on farmers, specific questions about agriculture must remain issues for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On the hon. Gentleman's comments about beef on the bone, the reality is that beef consumption in Britain at present is at a 20-year high, so his suggestion in that connection is wholly misplaced. The biggest problem facing farmers at present, as I am sure he will recognise, is not that ban but the ban on the export of British beef to Europe and elsewhere. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government, including the Prime Minister, are working hard to resolve that problem, which results from the incompetence of the previous Conservative Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — Quangos

Mr. David Heath: How many quangos have been (a) abolished and (b) brought under direct democratic control since 1 May 1997. [54720]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): Since 1 May 1997, Ministers have abolished 44 quangos and have announced plans to abolish 37 more. The Government's recent paper "Quangos: Opening the Doors" set out a range of new measures for improving the accountability and openness of all quangos which remain. We have already started to implement these policies, which include supporting and encouraging closer co-operation between local authorities and quangos with local offices.

Mr. Heath: Here is a job for enforcement, because that really is pitifully slow progress after 18 months. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for Ministers to be appointing about 30,000 people who should be appointed by election by the people, is unacceptable? Does he further agree that replacing Tory cronies with Labour cronies, or even Liberal Democrat cronies, does nothing for accountability or democracy?

Mr. Kilfoyle: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's charge, I can only say that he should understand the exact definition of a quango as established by the Conservative Government in 1980. None of those had a locus within local authorities, with the exception of some, such as urban development corporations, which have obviously gone, and the Funding Agency for Schools for England, which will be abolished in 1999. As regards the membership of the quangos, this Government have been far more open about appointments to those quangos and their terms of reference.

Mr. Andrew Reed: Although I welcome the steps that have been taken so far in abolishing a number of quangos and opening up the process, I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to speak to his colleague, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, particularly since he has just sat beside him, about the future role of the training and enterprise councils, particularly the growth and development of the regional development agencies. If my hon. Friend is looking for a pilot area for regional development agencies to take over the role of the TECs, I suggest that the east midlands should be at the top of the list.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I wish that it was within my gift to make my hon. Friend that promise but, unfortunately, I cannot. The publication "Quangos: Opening the Doors" is only the beginning of a process and, within the Cabinet Office, we continue to review the role, designation and membership of all quangos.

Mr. Eric Forth: What will the Government do to democratise the gigantic quango that they will create if they go ahead with the ill-thought-out plan to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The answer is extremely simple. We will be maintaining faith with the electorate. We set out clearly


and unequivocally that we would abolish hereditary peerage in the House of Lords as the first stage in its modernisation, and that we fully intend to do.

Oral Answers to Questions — Information Technology

Ms Margaret Moran: What plans he has to use new technology to increase public participation in government. [54725]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): An increasing number of Departments already use the internet to carry out public consultation exercises on policy proposals. We are keen to extend that further and want to encourage wider public participation in government via new technology.
We will shortly be publishing our market research results on peoples' attitudes to electronic government and intend to use the findings to help ensure that our better government programme will bring government closer to the needs of all our people.

Ms Moran: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Lady.

Ms Moran: May I ask my hon. Friend to look seriously at some of the work done by local government, such as the Lewisham democracy project, in the extension of what we now call e-governance and to look at the connecting Canada e-governance strategy which could be of benefit to us? Will he consider incorporating some of those ideas into the eagerly awaited White Paper on better government?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), went to look at some of those projects. We have considered their place in the better government White Paper and programme. I should point out that, when my hon. Friend was the leader of Lewisham council, she was one of the leaders in all the uses of information technology in delivering better services in that council. We have a programme of visiting many of our local authorities which can provide a lead in this area in partnership with central Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — Better Government Project

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What progress he proposes to make in the next 12 months on the better government project. [54729]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The better government project is one of the Government's and my top priorities. We will publish a White Paper in the spring setting out proposals for modernising government and joining up public services, to secure effective decision making and services that work and respond to the people who need them.

Mr. Pike: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Can he give me an assurance that, in the discussions that are taking place between national and local government

to ensure better co-operation between them, one of the primary objectives is that of replacing 18 years of confrontation and clampdown with co-operation, better government and better service for the people of this country?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, Madam Speaker, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Local government remains a key partner in taking forward our preparations for the better government initiative. I can tell my hon. Friend and the House that the invest-to-save budget, announced in the document on modernising public services following the comprehensive spending review, run jointly by the Treasury and the Cabinet Office, is exciting considerable interest. A fund of £150 million over the next three years is available, and public sector organisations will bid for funds to develop projects that bring together two or more public service bodies to deliver services in an innovative and more efficient way. That is another of the many important vehicles for taking forward better government.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Can the Minister explain how it contributes to better government that, while the House was debating defence yesterday, the Prime Minister was briefing Philip Webster and other journalists about a major revision to defence policy with regard to Europe—a proposal about which the House heard nothing during the debate? Was that at worst unco-ordinated government, or was the Defence Secretary holding the House in contempt in the same way as the Prime Minister was?

Dr. Cunningham: No, it was neither of those. I am sure that the Prime Minister was not briefing Philip Webster, either.

Oral Answers to Questions — Public Servants

Mr. Dennis Canavan: How many representations he has received about employment in the public service of citizens of the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland. [54730]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): Since April 1998 we have received five representations, including one from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), written with the support of 32 other hon. Members. Some have pressed the case for reversing the 1996 change to the civil service nationality rules. That meant that new entrant Irish and Commonwealth citizens ceased to be eligible for 25 per cent. of civil service posts, known in European Community terms as "public service". Others have sought early progress on introducing legislation to open the civil service to recruitment on merit, regardless of nationality.

Mr. Canavan: Does my hon. Friend agree that Irish and Commonwealth citizens have traditionally made an important contribution to public service in this country? Given that in June 1996 the previous Government changed the rules so that Irish and Commonwealth citizens are now debarred from some 25 per cent. of civil service posts, will the Government take steps to end such unfair discrimination, which reduces the employment prospects of many individuals and deprives the civil service of many talented potential recruits?

Mr. Kilfoyle: Those in post before 31 May 1996 would be eligible for the full range of civil service posts.


Nevertheless, it would require primary legislation to amend the Aliens Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1919 in order to effect changes. I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's concern and we are currently examining the position.

Oral Answers to Questions — Public Officials

Mr. Tim Boswell: What steps he is taking to co-ordinate departmental policies in respect of the conduct of public officials. [54731]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): On behalf of the Minister for the Civil Service, the Cabinet Office is responsible for the civil service code, the civil service management code and the model code for staff of executive non-departmental public bodies. Policies relating to groups of public servants for which other departments have lead responsibility are co-ordinated with the Cabinet Office as necessary.

Mr. Boswell: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind special advisers that they are, generally, civil servants? In particular, will he advise and encourage them not to brief against one another with the views of their departmental Minister? In his capacity as lord high enforcer, will he bring some order to government in case the term "beef on the bone" develops an entirely new connotation?

Dr. Cunningham: I can agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman says—I hope that he is pleased with that. As the Opposition know, special advisers are subject to a model contract and to the civil service code. Those provisions will continue.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: May I add my congratulations and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the Minister on his new appointment? On the co-ordination of Government information services, is he aware that a number of people, not just the Home Secretary, find it difficult to accept the view expressed by Lord Neill that Government information services should not be used during the holding of referendums where Government policy is being put to the test of public opinion?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. He will know that in due course the Government will give a considered response to the proposals from Lord Neill and his colleagues. The specific point that he raised is shared by many hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — Policy Co-ordination

Mr. Dennis Skinner: How many meetings he has had with other Ministers to discuss enforcing greater co-ordination of Government policy. [54732]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): I frequently meet my ministerial colleagues to discuss the co-ordination and presentation of Government policies, and I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend, too, if he so wishes.

Mr. Skinner: Instead of using up valuable time meeting me or anyone else from the Labour Benches,

perhaps my right hon. Friend would meet someone else, who I believe is probably undermining Government co-ordination. I refer, of course, to Eddie George. Does my right hon. Friend agree that he should ascertain from him whether he used the words that unemployment in the north is necessary to keep inflation down in the south? If he did, it is time that he went.

Dr. Cunningham: I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not want to meet me to advise me on how I might be more effective in my enforcer role. I understand that there is some doubt about whether Eddie George used the words at which my hon. Friend has understandably taken offence. As for my meeting Mr. George, I think that I will leave that pleasure to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I wonder whether the Minister knows that the members of the Select Committee on Deregulation have been twiddling their thumbs since May 1997, as it has virtually nothing to do. Is he proposing to wind it up or that we should exercise some better regulation, in which case, when does he propose that we should discuss that on the Floor of the House?

Dr. Cunningham: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the appointment or disbandment of a Select Committees of the House is, fortunately, not a matter for me. On better regulation, I should be happy to see the hon. Gentleman, and members of the Select Committee, to discuss how we are taking those important issues forward, not only in this country, but in the European Union.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Engagements

Mr. Don Touhig: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 October.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Mr. Touhig: May I tell my right hon. Friend that the people who sent me to this House warmly welcome the extra £40 billion promised for health and education? They see it as an investment in their future. Will he make it clear that cutting spending on schools and hospitals is the Tory way? It is not our way.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. The £40 billion for our schools and hospitals will not just ensure that we can get waiting lists and class sizes down and improve standards in the health service and our schools; it is also an investment in this country's future. The worst thing we could do would be to take the Tory way and cut that spending next year.

Mr. William Hague: After a summer in which one job has been lost every 10 minutes,


manufacturing has been taken to the brink of recession, agriculture has been deep in recession and the Chancellor has had to admit that his central economic forecasts are seriously wrong, will the Prime Minister tell the Chancellor to come to the Dispatch Box and explain how he got us into this mess and how he is going to get us out of it?

The Prime Minister: I note that the right hon. Gentleman claims that a job is being lost every 10 minutes in the United Kingdom. Since May last year, when the Government were elected, employment has increased by 373,000 in 537 days. That is one new job every two minutes. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Chancellor will make his pre-Budget report within the next two weeks, and he will give that at the appropriate time.

Mr. Hague: What a statement of extraordinary complacency from a Member of Parliament in whose own constituency 600 jobs were cut a few weeks ago. In July, when we last had Question Time, the Prime Minister told us that his forecasts were absolutely prudent. The Social Security Secretary, at the same time, told a Select Committee that people had said, "No, you are being too prudent; you are being too cautious." By August, the Education and Employment Secretary was saying that the economy was on a knife edge. By early October, the Chancellor was saying that his forecasts were seriously wrong.
Given that the Government's assumptions have proved so seriously wrong, does the Prime Minister think that the Government have any share of the responsibility for what has happened, or is it all somebody else's fault?

The Prime Minister: No. I shall give the right hon. Gentleman the figures for the north-east. He is quite wrong. Unemployment in the north-east has fallen since the Government came to power, and employment has risen. On any basis, not merely will we meet the fiscal rules that the Chancellor has set out, but borrowing will be less under this Government than in any year under the Conservative Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member.

Mr. Hague: If the Prime Minister thinks that there is not a serious economic problem, he is not living in the real world. He is not listening to businesses across the country, which have been telling the Government about the situation. All along, the Government's attitude has been to blame the managers, the workers, the investors and the Bank of England. This morning, we even had the Trade and Industry Secretary—who is gaff-prone now that he has to speak for himself—telling the workers at Rover to sharpen up their act. I think that the workers at Rover would tell the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Trade and Industry Secretary, none of whom have ever worked in a business in their lives, that they must sharpen up their act.
Given that the Prime Minister, who is also the First Lord of the Treasury, will not bring the Chancellor the Dispatch Box, does he agree with the Bank of England's report, which said that some of the reasons for higher

inflation and higher interest rates were the Government's spending decisions in July? Does he think that the Bank of England got that right?

The Prime Minister: I have made it clear that the Government's spending proposals—£40 billion extra on our schools and hospitals and investment in the country's transport infrastructure—are right. I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman says that he would cancel that spending. If the Conservatives' response to the economic situation is that they would cancel that spending on schools and hospitals, they are wrong economically and wrong socially, and they will pay a very heavy price politically.

Mr. Hague: It is not an adequate response to these questions simply to attack the Opposition. It is not an adequate response for people in the midlands who went to work this morning knowing that they were in danger of losing their jobs for the Prime Minister to tell the parliamentary Labour party this morning that the economic difficulties would be a political opportunity for the Labour party—that is how he regards the situation.
Has not the Prime Minister put the Bank of England in an impossible position? The Chancellor has his foot on the accelerator while telling the Governor of the Bank of England to put his foot on the brake. As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out, the Governor of the Bank of England says that the policy amounts to sacrificing jobs in the north to deal with the inflation problems that the Government have exacerbated. Is that the Government's policy? If not, what do they intend to do about the situation?

The Prime Minister: Borrowing is lower under this Government than it was under the Conservative Government. When we came to office, we cut the budget deficit from the £28 billion we inherited to less than £8 billion. Employment has risen by almost 400,000, and unemployment has fallen.
As for the car industry, there is a problem at Rover Longbridge. We will work with management, unions and others to try to deal with it. However, it is mainly a problem of productivity, and we must tackle that if we are to make our industry competitive. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a balanced picture of what is happening in the car industry, I can tell him that Rover at Cowley is expanding jobs, Vauxhall has just announced an extra 1,000 new jobs, Jaguar is announcing an extra 1,300 new jobs, and there are more jobs at Honda, more jobs at Toyota and more jobs at Nissan. I can also give him the figures on car production for the past six months, which has risen by 4.5 per cent. Exports for the same period have risen by more than 8 per cent. I agree that there is a problem at Rover Longbridge and that we must tackle it, but it is not helped by the idiotic hysteria that the right hon. Gentleman has just exhibited.

Mr. Hague: Not for the first time, we have a Labour Prime Minister who says, "What crisis?" He is not remotely in touch with how it feels for businesses, small businesses and farms across the country. Is not the truth that the Prime Minister inherited a golden legacy, and in 18 months he has squandered it? The last Labour Government had a winter of discontent. This Labour Government have had a summer of complacency, and are


now facing an autumn of rising unemployment. Is it not the case that jobs are being lost, investment is being cut and factories are being closed on a far greater scale than need have happened were it not for the policies of this Prime Minister and this Chancellor?

The Prime Minister: No. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman the facts relating to the week that has just ended. In actual fact, although it is true that around the country about 5,000 job losses have been announced, 15,000 extra jobs have also been announced. It is important to balance the picture.
When we came to office, we inherited a national debt that had doubled. We are reducing that national debt. We inherited borrowing that was out of control; we brought it under control. Yes, giving the Bank of England independence was a difficult decision, but it is right in the long term. That is why long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 30 years.
Interest rates are now coming down from 7.5 per cent. Everyone will remember that they were at 15 per cent. for a year or more under the last Conservative Government. That is the choice—the choice between boom and bust under the Conservatives, and long-term strength and stability with us. I believe that, in the long term, the country will choose the course that is right for it.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Following the Prime Minister's visit to New York last month and the subsequent meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World bank, is it not right to continue to focus on the problems of developing countries during the current global crisis? Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to read Friday's report of the United Nations Development Programme, showing that 1.5 billion people in the developing world are earning less than a dollar a day? Will the Prime Minister make dealing with those problems a priority, so that the poorest people in the poorest countries, who have been the major casualties of our global difficulties, can be given the attention that they deserve?

The Prime Minister: Of course the difficulties involved in the world financial crisis have made a difference to developing as well as developed countries. The International Monetary Fund has now halved its world growth forecast for next year. But I know that my right hon. Friend will recognise the work that has been done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for developing nations, both in terms of debt relief and in terms of constructing a new World bank facility to help them.
Ultimately, with the right financial and political systems, those nations can grow, and the benefit of their growth, and their escape from the heavy burden of debt, will be felt by the developed world as well as by developing countries themselves. That is why we have always felt, when investing money in aid and development, that, if that investment is properly targeted, it is in the mutual self-interest of both the developing and the developed world.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Beneath all the sound and fury and the Government's flawed economic forecasts, are not these the human facts? Whatever the situation may have been in the past, most observers now

believe that some 300,000 manufacturing jobs are in jeopardy, and one of our greatest industries—agriculture—is now experiencing its deepest crisis for 50 years. Will the Prime Minister at least start by acknowledging those facts?

The Prime Minister: As I did acknowledge in respect of Rover Longbridge, I readily acknowledge this in respect of the farming industry. Certain parts of manufacturing industry have been either very dependent on exports from Asia, or have been troubled by the strength of the pound. Yes, they are in a difficult position; but I believe that the long-term policies that we are pursuing—which ensure low inflation, stable growth and action on education, investment, skills and technology to deal with productivity problems—are our best option. The farming industry has a particular problem. That particular problem—the problem of BSE—we inherited, but I am hopeful that we can bring about relief for the farming industry over the next few months.

Mr. Ashdown: Instead of indulging in the blame game, the Prime Minister could do three things now. Will the Government consider them? First, the right hon. Gentleman could tackle our exchange rate problem by making a clear commitment to the single currency. Secondly, he could end the policy of seeking to control growth just through higher interest rates. Thirdly, he could ensure that our farmers in Britain enjoy the same financial package and advantages as every other fanner in Europe. Three things: will he do them?

The Prime Minister: I cannot promise to do that, I am sorry to tell the right hon. Gentleman. First, in relation to the euro, as I have said many times, the worst reason for joining is short-term exchange rate issues. I simply point out to him that the exchange rate is now below the level that we inherited last May.
As for farming incomes and subsidy, we do put an enormous amount of subsidy into the farming industry, but the problem is that there has been a collapse world wide in beef, lamb and pork prices, and of course it has affected our industries as well. We and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are looking at what can be done to help our industry; but in respect of the rest of Europe, I do not believe that we should emulate its agriculture policies. We should be working to reform the CAP in the interests of all the consumers.

Dr. David Clark: We in the north are delighted by the net increase in jobs that we have had since the general election, but we did inherit a legacy of the highest unemployment of any region in the United Kingdom. Does my right hon. Friend understand the anger and offence that have been caused in the north-east of England by the statement by the Governor of the Bank of England that the high unemployment in the north-east is a price worth paying for low inflation in the south? That is grossly offensive. Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity this afternoon to make it clear that that is not the policy of our Government?

The Prime Minister: It certainly is not the policy of the Government. Although Eddie George is perfectly able to look after himself, if we look at his remarks in context, he was not saying that. He was simply saying that we had


to set interest rate policy for the whole of an economy, not merely any one region—that we could not, in other words, differentiate interest rates in different parts of the economy.
Again, my right hon. Friend will know not just that, since this Government came to power, we have reduced unemployment and raised employment, but that the new deal, which is bringing new hope to many of the young and long-term unemployed, is working particularly well in the north-east. The help for some of the most deprived communities in the new scheme that has been announced by the Deputy Prime Minister will also help. It will take us time to repair the damage of the Conservative years, but we are making a start on it.

Mr. David Maclean: With jobs being destroyed across Britain at the rate of one every 10 minutes because of a recession made worse by bungling in Downing street, and with our British countryside dying because of the Government's neglect, will the Prime Minister stop trying to blame it on other people or pretend it is not happening, and do something about it now?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry to trouble the right hon. Gentleman with the facts, but the facts are, as I say, that employment has risen since this Government came to power, and unemployment has fallen. In respect of both his region and other regions of the country, more jobs are being created.
Of course, as we have said, the economic difficulties we face, in part as a result of world conditions, are faced by countries around the world. What is important, however, is that we have the right spending and the right monetary policy. The right hon. Gentleman's party is now committed to reversing Bank of England independence. That would be a terrible mistake for the interests of the country. [Interruption.] The Tories shake their heads. Will they shake their heads at this—that they are opposed to our extra spending next year? [Interruption.] The Conservative party says that it opposes all the spending in general, but it applauds it all in particular. It wants inflation taken out of the system, but without Bank of England independence—although it now says that it will retain it. The great black hole is the space where the Conservative party's brain used to be.

Mr. Richard Burden: My right hon. Friend will understand my concern at the report circulating about Rover Group and how unsettling that is, not just for my constituents in Longbridge, but for all those thousands of jobs that depend on Rover in the midlands and elsewhere.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while Rover is facing difficulties at the moment, that has to be set against the launch of a new model at the motor show this week and the millions of pounds worth of investment that has already been put in? Does he further agree that, if the difficulties are faced, Rover plants, including Longbridge, can have a bright future; and that the role of Government and politicians is to help the management and work force to reach the agreements that are necessary to face those challenges? That is surely better than, like the Conservative party, standing in some pretty fragile glasshouses and throwing stones.

The Prime Minister: Quite correct. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the balance of the situation is that Rover, for

example, is expanding at Cowley, and that it has tremendous opportunities at Longbridge as well. I greatly hope that the new R30 model will come to Longbridge. However, the important thing is that management and unions sit down and work out how they can raise productivity, as needed for the long term. The Government's role is to help in any way that we can, but also to recognise honestly that, ultimately, the future lies in the hands of the management and work force together. With the right partnership, I believe that it can be done.

Rev. Martin Smyth: As the House congratulates my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) on being the first British parliamentarians in 39 years to receive the Nobel peace prize, will the Prime Minister accept that real peace will develop only when his written commitments made to the people of Northern Ireland before the referendum are delivered, and that real peace surely includes the decommissioning of terrorist weaponry and cells?

The Prime Minister: Of course that is right. We want decommissioning to happen as quickly as possible. Under the agreement, decommissioning is due to be completed within the two-year period. I therefore entirely agree that the agreement—the whole of the agreement—has to be properly implemented. I agree also with the hon. Gentleman's comments on his right hon. Friend. The award of the Nobel peace prize to him and to the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party in Northern Ireland is a tremendous vote of confidence in the future of the whole of the Northern Ireland community.

Mr. Andrew Reed: The Prime Minister talks about tough choices. May I suggest to him—and ask whether he agrees with the House—that the easiest choice that he will have in the next few months will be whether to abolish the hereditary peers down the Corridor? Does he accept that he would receive massive support from Labour Members in making that simple and easy choice?

The Prime Minister: I notice that the Conservative party is now entirely opposed to any step to abolish hereditary peers—apparently on the grounds that hereditary peers are a representative cross-section of the British people. I have done a little work on that. Of the 750 hereditary peers, only two are black or Asian, only 16 are women, and 45 per cent. went to Eton. I think that that is a representative section of the British community that the House of Lords could do without.

Oral Answers to Questions — Official Visits

Mr. Tim Boswell: If he will pay an official visit to Silverstone in 1999.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans this year to visit Silverstone, but I very much want to visit it in the future, as I have already told people there.

Mr. Boswell: While the Prime Minister will always be welcome to come back to Silverstone, such a visit would perhaps not be as welcome as a firm start date for the Silverstone bypass. Will he not use this opportunity to


acknowledge the importance of the grand prix and the formula one industry as a centre of engineering excellence that is not only world class but a creator of several thousand jobs in my and adjoining constituencies? Will he specifically undertake not to succumb to pressure to pull the rug from under tobacco advertising and sponsorship unless and until firm arrangements are made to sustain that vital industry?

The Prime Minister: I think that I am probably in as good a position as anyone to understand the importance of formula one. I simply tell the hon. Gentleman that we believe that the industry is very important. Some 50,000 jobs depend on it, and it has a huge spin-off effect in technology and other areas for many different parts of industry.
The precise reason why we wanted to ensure that the European directive was phased in over time was to give the industry the chance to get other types of sponsorship. As those in the industry themselves have said, their best future lies in freeing themselves from tobacco sponsorship, which will take time. Because of our negotiations, they have that time, and we will help them to use it.

Oral Answers to Questions — Engagements

Helen Jones: Does the Prime Minister accept that one of the hard lessons that we had to learn in opposition was that statements made on a wet night in Dudley, as a former Chancellor put it, can come back to haunt one? If so, will he agree to make available the services of a Government statistician to help the Opposition to understand the implications of the shadow Chancellor promising to cut spending and shadow departmental Ministers promising to increase it—or does he think that they will never reach the required standards of numeracy?

The Prime Minister: It is certainly correct that the Government will hold firm to our spending plans next year. After this Question Time, it is unclear whether the Opposition are in favour of or against the spending plans, or whether they are going to ballot their members to find out; but whatever twists and turns the Opposition engage in, this spending is right. It is an investment in this country's future, and the worst thing that we could do would be to cancel it at the present time.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the great British millennium dome, the showcase for British culture, will not be sponsored by a great big American fast food corporation, which would probably try to reduce it to a large McDome and fries?

The Prime Minister: I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman means by that, but it is important that we get sponsorship for the dome. That is in line with what hon. Members have continually been saying—the more private sponsorship we can get, the better. I am sure that the dome is going to be a tremendous success, and I look forward to welcoming the hon. Gentleman there.

Ms Rachel Squire: At one of my constituency surgeries, two brothers and a sister

told me that they had recently met for the first time. The two brothers were sent to an orphanage while their parents were still alive and were shipped to Australia when they were nine and 12 years old. They were then separated and sent to institutions where they experienced hardship and abuse. They were among 10,000 children sent on a Government-approved child migrant scheme which continued until the late 1960s. These children were sent without parental approval and were told that their families were dead.
Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming and paying tribute to the work of the Child Migrants Trust and in welcoming the report by the Select Committee on Health which was published just before the summer recess? Will he ensure that the Government will do all they possibly can to give immediate and full access to the former child migrants and their representatives, so that, before age takes its toll, some may at long last find the families that they lost so long ago?

The Prime Minister: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this subject and of her campaigning work. I am also very much aware of the heartache that is caused when families are unable to trace their relatives. The Department of Health has made some £200,000 in grants available to the Child Migrants Trust. As my hon. Friend knows, the trust and other bodies work very hard on behalf of former child migrants. The Department of Health will consider very carefully any future applications to the trust, and the Government will consider what else we can do to assist families to trace their relatives.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does the Prime Minister appreciate the fact that, despite the wonderful summer that we had in Dorset, the tourist industry is doing very badly? Given that hoteliers face the prospect of ever higher interest rates, a high pound, increased costs of regulation and an economic downturn, does the Prime Minister believe that they should go out of business now—or should they wait for the flood of new customers experiencing the enforced leisure that his downturn at Downing street is going to bring about?

The Prime Minister: I would simply point out the facts. Interest rates are coming down, in case the hon. Gentleman has not noticed the reduction, and the pound is now below the level that we inherited. As I have often said, I do not believe that the answer to all industry's problems is perpetual devaluation. That game was tried by the Conservatives for 20 years, and it did not yield long-term benefits. The hon. Gentleman should at least applaud the efforts being made by this Government to improve training and skills within the tourist industry—making the industry a high value-added industry is giving it the best future that it can have.

Mr. Ian Pearson: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), will my right hon. Friend stress personally to BMW the importance that the Government attach to Rover's forward investment programme and the need for the replacements of the 200 and 400 series vehicles to be manufactured in the west midlands? Does he agree that, given the launch of the new Rover R75 and Jaguar S-type, 1,000 new jobs on Merseyside and major investment plans by Nissan, Toyota


and Honda, we should be talking up the British motor industry, not talking it down as the Conservatives do? After all, their policies were directly responsible for the loss of 1 million manufacturing jobs and interest rates of 15 per cent. for a year.

The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. We must balance the problems at Rover Longbridge, which we have to try to tackle, with what is actually a continuing success story in the British car industry. If production has risen by 4 per cent. in the past six months, that is

something of which we can be proud. It is expanding, but it can expand in today's highly competitive market only if the investment and the skills are there. The work force is willing, and I know that BMW management want to make that commitment. By management and unions working together—and we will help in any way proper for a Government to help—we will get the investment and the rise in productivity that we need at Rover Longbridge so that the future of the plant can be secured.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Time is up.

Rover

Mr. John Redwood: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the crisis at Rover and on what action the Government propose to take.

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Mandelson): I have been taking and will continue to take a close personal interest in the developments at Rover, and I have travelled twice to the west midlands, for different reasons, already this week. I have been in touch with the company on a number of occasions in recent weeks. I met union officials on Monday evening, and have a further meeting with the chairman of BMW, Berndt Pischetsrieder, and the chairman of Rover, Walter Hasselkus, tomorrow morning.
The company is in the process of a wide-ranging review of Rover's car operations in the United Kingdom. No decisions have yet been made, but clearly they need to establish a commercially viable basis of production. The company has indicated that it needs a £150 million cost reduction every year for the next three years. That is a tall order, and must inevitably include an examination of company employment practices as well as investment in new plant and technology.
Rover's investment plans are designed to deliver the right models to the market which are attractive to customers and affordable for them to buy. On the basis of those plans, the new R75 is under production at Cowley, and there is an assured future for Longbridge with the production of the new R30 model, but, critically, it depends on the right cost structures being put in place at the plant.
Rover has a long way to go to match the best world standards of productivity and competitiveness. BMW has indicated that Rover's overall current productivity levels are only two thirds of those of its German counterparts. The company and its work force need to focus very clearly on the changes required to bring about the raised performance it needs in order to be commercially successful.
The company has already come a very long way in introducing the necessary productivity changes that it needs. The investment by BMW amounting to between £500 million and £600 million per annum has gone a long way to address the previous shortfall of investment in the company, but more needs to be done.
I am told by the company that, one way or another, a solution to its current difficulties has to be found by the end of November. Without question, everyone will have to share in the burden of finding that solution—shareholders, management, work force and suppliers.
My Department and I will continue to work closely with BMW and Rover as their review develops. There is a role for the Government in ensuring that all the parties are brought together and properly focused on the issues. However, ultimately it is for the company to rise to the challenge and ensure that Rover continues to thrive in the global market place.
There has been comment that this is just another instance of the car industry in the UK in decline. That is far from the case. In addition to Rover's new R75,

launched this week, Vauxhall has just started a third shift to produce the new Astra at Ellesmere Port, and Ford has invested £400 million in its new Jaguar S-type car, also launched this week. Other announcements this year include a £500 million investment by Honda to produce a third model at Swindon, creating 1,000 new jobs, and on Monday the Deputy Prime Minister opened a £200 million engine plant expansion by Toyota at Derby.
British automotive production is delivering excellent vehicles at competitive prices to some very tough markets. That continuing success deserves full acknowledgement and encouragement by all hon. Members.

Mr. Redwood: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. It was as patronising as it was complacent. Of course Rover needs to produce affordable models. Why, then, have the Government that he represents done everything in their power in the past 18 months to make it dearer to make cars in Britain, rather than making it cheaper? Why does he dare to deliver a speech like an undertaker denying all knowledge of the reasons for the death, when his Government's policies have been throttling British industry over the past 18 months? When will the Government wake up to the terrible damage that they are doing to manufacturing industry? The Trade Secretary needs to sharpen up his act rather than calling on others to do so.
I hope that the Secretary of State notices that Rover is not alone in finding conditions in the United Kingdom hostile to manufacturing. Day by day, and week by week, we are witnessing a tidal wave of redundancies and closures across our industry. For the past year, the Opposition have consistently warned that Labour's policies would trigger a manufacturing collapse.
Every time that interest rates were put up, more factories were bound to close. Every time that the Government's actions pushed up the value of the pound, more jobs were bound to go. Every measure that they took to make it dearer to employ people meant that more projects were bound to go elsewhere. Every time that they increased business taxes, companies were left with less cash for new plant, products and jobs.
It has taken only 18 months to squander a golden economic legacy—18 months of heavy taxes by stealth; 18 months of high sterling; 18 months of high interest rates; 18 months of many new costs and regulations for anyone who dares to employ someone. On the "Today" programme this morning, we heard the Secretary of State blaming the employees. He washed his hands of all responsibility. He is the Secretary of State for industry, so why does he not behave like it? The unions and the Opposition were offered no right of reply on the programme to the view that it was all the employees' fault, and that Rover was somehow a unique problem.
How can the Rover employees compete when the Government have made it so difficult for business in Britain? Why should they accept criticism of their work from the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), when he insults them with his remarks and fails at his job? Perhaps he should try getting his hands dirty in the right way, for a change. All we get from the Government are idiotic soundbites. We are promised a stable and competitive exchange rate. Which will they try first? We have had neither so far. They tell us that they are building for the long term. When will the


demolition in the short term stop? Will the Secretary of State shoulder some of the responsibility? Does he understand that Ford is going on to a four-day week? Textile, engineering and high-tech companies are closing down or laying off people? Does he know or care that a job is being lost every 10 minutes under this Government? Will he take some action with his colleagues to delay the damage that they are doing to British business? Will they delay some of the costs that they are heaping on British business? Will they control the social security budget and address the black hole in their finances which is worrying the Bank of England and keeping interest rates too high? Will they return to the much lower level of business taxation that the Conservative Government left them—once they have managed to control their massive increase in welfare spending?
Outside the House, they will call the right hon. Member for Hartlepool "Mr. Mandelson, the Minister for Manufacturing Collapse". If he does not do something soon, he will become "the Minister for Manufacturing Slump". He and his colleagues have made it too dear to make things in Britain. They must act now to help save some jobs at Rover, and at all the companies which today are considering the same type of action. This is a recession made in Downing street. The Government must awaken soon before much more is lost.

Mr. Mandelson: Unless I blinked, the right hon. Gentleman did not mention Longbridge once. It is absolutely clear why he tabled the private notice question: he is determined to continue competing in ridiculous hyperbole with the leader of his party. To hear him carrying on in such a way, anyone would think that the Tory party leadership contest was still going on.
In his lectures about manufacturing and manufacturing jobs, the right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that, under his Government, the number of manufacturing jobs fell from 7 million to 4 million. One million manufacturing jobs alone were lost in the recession that his party created in the early 1990s. He seems to have overlooked the fact that, since this Government came to office, more jobs have been created than have been lost. Indeed, since we were elected, 400,000 new jobs have been created as a result of our policies and the success of British business.
It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman is interested only in trying to manufacture a crisis out of a rather complicated company reconstruction, which has been undertaken by Rover with immense difficulty. Everyone agrees that Rover has to undertake the reconstruction in order to make the company and the plant at Longbridge competitive and profitable. Success and reconstruction will come only from increases in productivity, which everyone except the right hon. Gentleman recognises needs to be made.

Dr. Lynne Jones: When I asked the previous Prime Minister a question about the future of Rover, he said that it was not a matter for him. I hope that that will not be this Government's attitude. We all knew—BMW knew when it took over Rover—that a problem of differential productivity needed to be addressed. That has obviously been exacerbated by the strength of the pound, which was not anticipated.
The key to dealing with the issue must be investment, which has been made in other plants but not yet in Longbridge at the necessary level. Will my right hon.
Friend do all he can to secure that investment? Does he agree that, with such investment, Rover at Longbridge faces a bright future? Does he also agree that, in securing the investment, it would be helpful if there were a promise that the pound will be more competitive in the long term?

Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support for the action that the Government have already taken. I am sure that she acknowledges that, at the end of the day, the company's future rests in its hands. As I have said, there is much that the Government can do in bringing together all parties to ensure that all the key issues involved are properly addressed. We are certainly doing that.
In all my discussions with management, the work force and trade union representatives at the company, I have been impressed by their sense of realism as well as their shared commitment to resolving the difficulties that the company is experiencing. Such resolution will be achieved only if there is continued commitment and if all members of the work force, the management and the executives of the company act in partnership in order that changes are made.
I am confident that, given the discussions that I have had, those changes will be made, that investment at Longbridge will be secured, and that Rover will be able to sort out its future and continue successful production on the basis of a commercially successful, viable, profitable future.

Mr. David Chidgey: I fully support and welcome the efforts that the management and work force of Rover at Longbridge are making to turn the company around. It is easy to blame poor productivity or poor management alone for the crisis that manufacturing industry, especially the car industry, faces, but we must recognise that those problems have been with us for decades, and it will not be possible to turn them round at a stroke.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the Government must bear some responsibility for the fact that we are losing 300 jobs a day in manufacturing? One of the reasons for that is the Government's policy for sterling, which has created the highest value of sterling for at least 15 years, and is making life extremely tough, if not impossible, for our manufacturing industry. Does he agree with this week's forecasts that, unless the Government make some commitment—as I think he has already said they should—on entry into the single European currency, we face the loss not only of 300 jobs a day in manufacturing industry, but of at least 300,000 jobs next year?

Mr. Mandelson: I may or may not share the hon. Gentleman's view on economic and monetary union, but I do not think that the Rover company will find its salvation or the solution to its problems in Britain's immediate, early or later entry into the single currency—with, of course, the full-hearted consent of the British people.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not join other Opposition Members in talking down the British economy and talking ourselves into recession, which is enormously damaging to the confidence of those in business, who are struggling all the time, successfully, to increase productivity and maintain Britain's share of world markets.
I stress to the hon. Gentleman the fact that the job news is not all bad. Indeed, there is more good news than bad news on jobs. Recently there have been tremendously important job gains. For example, Oracle is opening a new plant that will create 2,000 new jobs in Solihull; Syntel is creating 2,000 new jobs in Belfast; Microsoft, in a joint venture with Computacenter, is creating 900 jobs in London and the south-east over the next three years; IBM, in a joint venture with Cable and Wireless, is creating 400 jobs nationwide. I could go on and on.
There is an enormous amount of good news—and that news will continue to flow so long as the Government maintain our commitment to economic stability, which gives companies the confidence and the ability to predict and plan for the future. That is what they need, and that is what they will continue to get from the Government's policies.

Jacqui Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an important element of the competitiveness of a business is the supply network that it can build up around it? Many businesses in my constituency have played a vital role in supplying Rover, and they and their work forces have been willing to adapt to the demands that have been made. In his meetings with Rover and BMW executives, will my right hon. Friend stress the importance of that west midlands supply network, and remind them that it will not be easy to rebuild it in other parts of this country or Europe?

Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I know how well aware Rover and BMW are of the importance of that excellent supply chain, which also stretches beyond the west midlands. I am pleased that so much work is going on in the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. I was in Birmingham this morning addressing its conference, and its members are doing an enormous amount to improve their networks, their business links and their mutual dependency.
Business is learning from business; they are learning how, throughout the supply chain as a whole, they can serve each other. You are right, Madam Speaker, to say that there is an excellent supply base and skill base in the west midlands. I am confident that those will not be dispersed as a result of premature decisions taken by BMW or Rover.

Mr. William Cash: The Secretary of State says that the decision lies with company management. Does he accept that there are serious questions to be asked—in relation not only to Rover, but to a whole range of British industries—concerning decisions taken by the European Commission and/or by the German Government, which are leading to the increased uncompetitiveness of British industry?
Does the Secretary of State accept that there ought to be proper investigations at the proper level in Europe and in the DTI of the real reasons why, over and over again, Britain gets the rough end of the argument? Why, for example, are massive subsidies paid in other countries—such as to Air France and in Germany? Why are cheap loans made at no interest from the lender banks, putting

Britain at a competitive disadvantage? Will he do the right thing and have a quiet and careful examination of the matter in the British interest?

Mr. Mandelson: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's paranoia about Britain always being at the rough end of the European stick. However, he makes a reasonable point—which I acknowledge—that we must be vigilant at all times about any proposal or measure emanating from Brussels that threatens Europe's economic competitiveness. I am vigilant about that—I take it very seriously— indeed. One cannot return from a week in the United States—as I have done—having seen the vibrancy of that economy and the lack of barriers to investment, production, innovation and flexibility in that country without having some concern about Europe's record.
However, in the past 15 months, the Labour Government have done a darn sight more—and a darn sight more successfully—to prise open and liberalise European markets to the advantage of British firms. We will continue to challenge every measure proposed by the European Commission which we believe to be inconsistent with Europe's paramount need to maintain its competitiveness in the world economy.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have been able to call only a few hon. Members to put questions. I would ask that questions now be brisk, and if the Secretary of State would oblige me with brief answers, it would be extremely helpful to our debate later today.

Mr. Richard Burden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the criticisms from the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), do not carry much credibility? The Conservative Government sold off Rover at a knock-down price, laced it with sweeteners which proved to be illegal, and did so behind the backs of the employees of Rover Group.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we want to work towards the fulfilment of plans for renovations at Longbridge—plans which have already received planning approval—and towards a full-model range, starting with the new Mini and building up to a new medium-range model? I welcome what he has said about assisting the discussions between management and unions to achieve those ends. Will he pay tribute to the work that has been done by employees at Longbridge in improving productivity there? They are confident that they can improve productivity still further there and at other plants in the future.

Mr. Mandelson: I can do all those things, Madam Speaker. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been extremely active and conscientious in the past few weeks in making sure that the Government have been properly focused on what we can do to support the efforts of all at Rover, and particularly at Longbridge.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—the previous Government sold off Rover without lifting a finger to help to put in place the conditions for Rover's future success. They will for ever be indicted for that. Following my discussions with management and union officials at


Longbridge, I acknowledge the strong determination there to find a solution to all the problems that the company faces. Judging by their success so far in raising productivity, I am confident that that is what they will do.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I have a brief question which, I hope, will receive an accurate answer. How much will the working time directive cost Rover on a year-by-year basis?

Mr. Mandelson: A sound and straightforward technical question of that sort will get a perfectly sound, straightforward, technical answer from me if it is possible for me to provide it when the hon. Gentleman gives me notice of the question.

Mr. Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend mentioned the success in Ellesmere Port that Vauxhall has just announced. He will have noticed from files that he inherited how complex was the process of securing the agreement that took Ellesmere Port and Luton into the long-term future. Does he agree that that was done through a partnership between the work force and management and, indeed, Government both central and local? Are there not lessons that can be learned about the problems facing us at Longbridge?

Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but not merely about Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port. Look at the success story of Jaguar following Ford's investment in that company, its strength now and the tremendous attractiveness of the new model, the S-type, which was launched this week. What were people saying about Jaguar not so long ago? They were writing it off, but people helped and came together—the work force and the Government, and the management contributed, too. If we can do similarly in relation to Rover and help to create as much success in that company as we did following Ford's purchase of Jaguar, we will be doing extremely well.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of my total commitment to manufacturing, whatever Government are in power. Does he accept that manufacturing is in severe difficulty—some believe, in recession? Is he confident that his announcement this afternoon will give the necessary reassurance to Rover management at Longbridge and to the work force, who have done an extremely good job in recent years?
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the Treasury appears to be anti-car and anti-road. So many of the extra taxes imposed by this Government have been imposed on the motorist, and there is now talk of a higher excise duty for the larger capacity car as from next year. Is that the way to encourage a healthy market for the car industry in this country? I do not believe so. Will he have a word with the Treasury?

Mr. Mandelson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I have shown as strong a commitment to the future of the car industry today as I acknowledge he has to British manufacturing. I share his concern, and look forward to engaging with him and other Conservative Members who share that commitment to manufacturing. I do not know how many Conservative Members there

will be. It might be a dialogue between the two of us, but, hopefully, as he continues to champion British manufacturing, he may eventually gain some recruits on his own side.
Whatever the hon. Gentleman says about pessimism among some people in manufacturing, he should not talk down British manufacturing. He does not mean to do so, but let us acknowledge that manufacturing output is up, and manufacturing jobs are being created. With the additional investment and productivity boosts that we have seen in other sectors being transferred and translated to the automotive sector, success in that sector, including Rover, will be similar to that in other parts of United Kingdom manufacturing, and it will be a continuing success.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am absolutely focused on the needs of UK manufacturing. Those needs, as well as the needs of the service industries, will be the focus and target of the competitiveness White Paper and the measures that I will propose when I publish it in early December.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If, as was said, levels of productivity at Longbridge were two thirds of those in Germany, that is a stark statistic—it makes exchange rate problems pale into insignificance. Has that statistic been independently produced, and do the trade unions at Longbridge accept it?

Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend makes a good point about Conservative point scoring on the value of sterling. Everyone at Rover, in all parts of the company, acknowledges that the dominant factor is the competitiveness that flows from the cost structure and levels of productivity. The trade union leadership in the company and at the plant, with whom I had a realistic exchange on Monday evening, also accepts that.
There will obviously have to be some difficult discussions with the work force, but there is no question of people rushing to conclusions and driving through quick-fix, superficial changes; we are talking about root-and-branch reorganisation. I remain confident that, given the commitment shown by everyone in the company, we shall see such a jump in productivity and improvement in competitiveness.

Dr. Evan Harris: Rover's announcement will send a shiver down the spines of those people in my constituency and in the constituency of the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who work at the Oxford Rover plant—after the job losses of the 1980s, they are thinking, "Not again."
Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a suspicion that this manufacturing mess was made in Millbank for Murdoch when tax increases were ruled out for this Parliament, which has left a one-club strategy of interest rates? Has not the problem been caused by the fact that the delay and dither of the previous Government has been replaced by "wait and see until News International gives the go ahead on EMU"? The right hon. Gentleman cannot claim credit for the creation of jobs in manufacturing unless he accepts the blame for the loss of jobs.

Mr. Mandelson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not respond to his stream of clichés.


He would do better to congratulate the Cowley plant and Rover, which has successfully launched the R75 model this week. Moreover, Rover's expansion of production at Cowley will result in the creation of 800 new jobs in the new year, which is a cause for celebration.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that global economic conditions and prospects are significantly worse than they were over the 18 years of the previous Government—who none the less caused two recessions—and that the level of sterling, in an uncertain world, is a measure of confidence in the British economy, where the number of jobs is increasing? The key to success must be to refocus on stability and productivity, and I look forward to seeing that re-emphasised in the forthcoming White Paper on competitiveness.

Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend will certainly not be disappointed. Everyone, with the exception of the Opposition, acknowledges that the British economy, which was operating at the peak of the business cycle, had inevitably to slow down—that analysis is shared by all. No one could have predicted the crisis in the world financial system that began in Asia and spread like a contagion to the rest of the world. Our task is to ensure that, against the background of world instability, we keep our eyes firmly focused on long-term stability in the British economy. Our policies are designed to achieve that, and I am confident that they will.

Sir David Madel: To secure substantial improvements in productivity at the Vauxhall plants at Luton and Ellesmere Port, the trade unions agreed to big changes in work practices and patterns. Have the trade unions at Longbridge agreed in principle to make such changes?

Mr. Mandelson: It is too early to describe conclusions or changes that people are signing up to or entering into, but, on the basis of my discussion with the union officials on Monday night, I can say that they are facing the situation with considerable realism. Everyone has to do that if everyone is to share the burden that will be involved in finding a solution to Rover's current difficulties. I think that they acknowledge that costs have to be reduced in the company and I believe that they accept that that will involve considerable restructuring and reorganising in the company's employment arrangements. I think that they will face that with great fortitude and they deserve our support and help in doing so. They will certainly get that from the Government.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We shall move on now.

Point of Order

Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Having just sat through the two days of the defence debate, you will have been as surprised as I was by the headline in The Times today: "Britain to back defence role for Europe". Nothing that was said by Defence Ministers in this place could possible bear that interpretation, despite the fact that the Government were being pressed on the matter by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith).
It is now clear that, while the House was debating defence, the Prime Minister was briefing Philip Webster and other journalists from Europe about an important change in defence policy as regards Europe. The only question is whether the Secretary of State for Defence and his team were party to the contempt of Parliament or whether they were victims of the high-handed treatment to which we have become used.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I gave the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to put that question to the Minister for the Cabinet Office during Question Time. If he did not like the answer that he received, that does not give him a reason to put the same question to me now.

Schools and Colleges (Funding Formula)

Mr. David Chaytor: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a common funding formula for 16 to 19-year-old students in schools and colleges.
The Bill requires the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to establish a common funding formula for school sixth forms, sixth-form colleges and further education colleges, so that students pursuing the same or similar courses in different institutions receive broadly the same level of public funding. At present, 60 per cent. of full-time 16 to 19-year-old students now study in the college sector, with only 40 per cent. in school sixth forms.
The need for the Bill lies in the increasing evidence that in recent years a funding gap has opened up between school sixth forms and colleges that could now be of the order of 20 per cent. That is to say that most sixth forms receive up to 20 per cent. more funding per student than their neighbouring colleges. We are used to differential levels of funding between private and state schools, but here there are unacceptable differentials within the state sector.
The Bill does not deal with the related issue of differential funding between colleges and training and enterprise councils, but that may be an issue that other hon. Members wish to pursue. Nor does it deal directly with the anomalies of differential funding between local education authorities or between colleges funded by the Further Education Funding Council.
The nature of the current problem is that there is essentially one curriculum for students aged 16 to 19, but two distinct sectors, two financial systems and two funding regimes. The issue has been widely discussed within the profession during the last five years, particularly since the incorporation of colleges in 1993 and the establishment of the FEFC, although it has been difficult to reach agreement over the exact methodology for calculating comparative costs.
I remind the House of the different funding regimes that apply to school sixth forms and colleges. Schools receive their funding through local education authorities. I am delighted to say that the formerly opted-out schools will be brought back within the remit of local authorities in due course. There is wide variation between LEAs. Funding for 16 to 19-year-olds is distributed according to the LEAs local management of schools scheme, mainly according to pupil numbers: on average, 16-year-olds are worth about 140 per cent. of an 11-year-old funded through the average weighted pupil unit. Up to 20 per cent. of the budget may not be related strictly to numbers, but the numbers of students are determined on a single census day, no account is taken of drop-out, and there is no allowance for achievement.
By contrast, colleges are funded through the Further Education Funding Council. The funds are distributed according to the number enrolled, the number continuing to participate and the results at the end of the course. There is a weighting for the different curriculum areas. The funding reflects the real cost of delivering the courses. High-cost areas such as science achieve more than lower-cost areas such as humanities.
Schools receive funding that is front loaded, depending largely on the number of students enrolled at the start of the course. College funding is determined by the number of students who continue on the course, and on their levels of achievement.
To date, the policy of both the previous and the present Government has been to support convergence in principle. The former Government made that clear in their competitiveness White Paper, and our Government have referred to it recently in the consultation paper on fair funding. Earlier this year, the report of the Select Committee on Education and Employment drew attention to the subject. There has also been considerable research, although there is a dispute over the methodology. It is likely that the latest piece of research from the Department for Education and Employment will be published in the next few weeks showing that the difference in funding levels has increased.
A common funding formula would help to restore some of the savage cuts imposed on colleges in recent years. It would concentrate the minds of local authorities and individual schools with small sixth forms which have not yet grasped the nettle of the damaging implications of post-16 competition. It would release resources which could also be used to increase spending in schools at key stage 3. Most importantly, by encouraging greater collaboration to secure economies of scale, it could widen curriculum choice for young people to enable them to pursue the course that best suits their interests, abilities and career aspirations.
I do not claim that the proposals in the Bill for a common funding formula for schools and colleges will achieve all those objectives overnight—nor do I believe that a common funding formula alone can address the crisis of funding or the chaotic legacy of the internal market that continues to damage post-16 education. For the nettle to be truly grasped, we need to establish new planning powers at regional level. However, the Bill would be an important means of getting the ball rolling in the right direction, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Chaytor.

SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES (FUNDING FORMULA)

Mr. David Chaytor accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for a common funding formula for 16 to 19-year-old students in schools and colleges: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed [Bill 247].

HUMAN RIGHTS BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the Human Rights Bill [Lords]:—

1. The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting.
2. The proceedings on consideration mentioned in the first column shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the time mentioned in the second column:



New Clauses up to and including New Clause 2
1½hours after commencement


New Clause 3
2½hours after commencement


Amendments up to the end of line 24 on page 1
3 hours after commencement


Amendments up to the end of line 29 on page 7
4½ hours after commencement


Remaining amendments
6 hours after commencement



3. The proceedings on Third Reading shall, if not concluded, be brought to a conclusion 7 hours after commencement.
4. In paragraphs 2 and 3 "commencement" means commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this resolution.
5. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading for any part of the period of 7 hours mentioned in paragraph 3 which falls after 10 o'clock.
6. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on the Bill.
7. For the purpose of concluding any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order—

(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including in the case of a new Clause which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown; and
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Orders of the Day — Human Rights Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Committee), considered.

New clause 2

Orders of the Day — NO REMEDIAL ORDER BEFORE DETERMINATION OF EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

'.—Where

(a) a Court, as defined in section 4(5), has made a declaration of incompatibility in respect of any legislation and where there is no further domestic right of appeal; but
(b) it nonetheless appears to a Minister of the Crown that it is desirable in the public interest that the question of compatibility, and all and any issues arising in the proceedings which have given rise thereto should not be the subject of any remedial order unless and until such issues shall have been fully considered by the European Commission of Human Rights or, if admissible, should have been the subject of a judgement, decision, declaration or opinion of the European Court of Human Rights;

he may issue a certificate to the said effect in writing, and in such event the said declaration shall be of no effect pending consideration of the said issues by the Commission and the Court.'.—[Sir Nicholas Lyell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
With this Bill we now turn from the damage being done to the economy by the Government to the damage which, alas, is being done to our constitution. I do not think that that is the intention of the Home Secretary, but he is party to it.
We have two main debates on this aspect. First, there is the debate on new clause 2 which relates to the need for an appeal to Strasbourg for the Government and for local authorities in certain circumstances. Secondly, there is our continued resistance to the Government's proposal for a fast-track system for remedial orders—in other words, for a system whereby, if there is a declaration of incompatibility by our courts, instead of the matter coming before Parliament for a proper Bill and Act of Parliament in the normal way, with full consideration by the House, the matter can simply be pushed through with a three-hour debate after a period of outside consultation. Both those matters are important if our constitution is not to be damaged.
The purpose of the new clause, to which we return because of the rather uncomprehending and unsatisfactory response by the Government in Committee, is to make clear what is unclear at present—that is, that the object of the Bill and incorporation of the convention is to bring our law into line with that of Strasbourg and make it easier for UK citizens to get a ruling from our domestic courts on issues that would hitherto have been taken to Strasbourg.
I hope that the Home Secretary agrees that the object is not to create a substitute constitution in the broad language of the convention, against which our domestic courts might be tempted to reshape our law in a way that goes further than the requirements of the convention. The


convention was not designed to become a substitute written constitution for the United Kingdom. It was designed to keep UK law in line with the human rights law of Council of Europe member states, as declared in Strasbourg.
The new clause seeks to help in that process and the Government have nothing to fear from it. I therefore call on the Home Secretary to make it clear that what I have outlined is the Government's objective, and no more.
Hopefully, the problems to which I refer will not arise, but they are not fanciful. The answer may be that those problems do not arise frequently on the continent of Europe, but there are significant differences between the structure of our law and that of civil law countries, such as France, Germany or Spain. Indeed, almost all countries on the mainland of Europe are civil law countries, and their laws are much more heavily codified than ours. They have much more "black letter" law. It is not open to their judiciaries to develop their law as our judiciary has developed ours through the common law over the centuries.
In most ways, our system is a strength. The development of the common law has been rightly informed by a belief in the rights and liberties contained in the convention. We are rightly reminded that the convention was largely drafted in Britain in the late 1940s and early 1950s. However, any common law development has—subject to the European convention—always been subject to modification by the elected representatives of the people in Parliament. That gives democratic legitimacy to our constitution.
In future, that is to change somewhat, but I hope that the House agrees that it must not change too far. It is one thing to keep our law in conformity with Strasbourg concepts, which are, on the whole, cautious and seek to enforce basic standards; but the commission and the court in Strasbourg have also recognised that there must be a "substantial margin of appreciation". That is Strasbourg jargon, which means a substantial discretion and latitude should be given to each member state in respect of the exact method of implementation of the high principles set out in the convention. That margin of appreciation must also apply to domestic judgments based on the convention.
I hope that the Home Secretary agrees that the convention is not to give the judiciary carte blanche to rewrite our laws. Although one hopes that our courts will not over-use their powers—I think that most of them will not—the Government are right to anticipate that they will frequently be requested to do so. They will often come under a great deal of pressure and hear a lot of carefully prepared arguments in that direction.
If hon. Members need convincing of that danger, they need only read the speech given by the Attorney-General to the Bar Council at the beginning of this month. He explained, and I agree with him, how every level of the Government needs to undergo training as to the reach and relevance of human rights law. Repeated and extensive arguments are to be anticipated by those who, on behalf of defendants and others, appear before the courts. He said that the Crown Prosecution Service is to be trained and furnished with model answers to the more obvious submissions that are to be anticipated. Magistrates and judiciary are likewise to receive training, but what will happen if there is a ruling by our domestic courts against

the Government—of whatever complexion, for we are legislating for as far as the eye can see and beyond—or a public authority which is believed to have gone too far?
Here, with respect to the Home Secretary, his answer on 24 June—I am sorry that I could not be present, but, as he knows, I was in hospital—is not, in our view, adequate. We need to create a more formal structure so that the individual citizens involved in particular cases and the country at large know where they stand. Are the Government accepting a particular ruling, and do they propose to legislate promptly?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I simply want to ask him whether he has a reference for the occasion on which I made this point.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall look to help from the Bench behind, as the Home Secretary is better able to do. I should not say that he is better able to do that, because I have my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) with me.

Mr. Straw: The junior.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: No, my hon. and learned Friend is not my junior at all now; he is one of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the law, no less.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Learned or not, may I interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend? The Home Secretary's speech, in response to mine, began at column 1127 of Hansard, or thereabouts.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Some of the Home Secretary's answers on that occasion seemed to be rather dismissive, or even—this is not like him—a little trite. I am sure that he did not intend them to be so, but the Opposition are well aware that there is no "right" of appeal for Governments or public authorities to Strasbourg. It is precisely because we are aware of that that it was necessary to draft new clause 2, the purpose of which we have already put before hon. Members in Committee, in this careful way.
My impression from the Government's answer is that they recognise that there will be occasions when it is necessary to force a case to continue on to Strasbourg. I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would either make it clear that he does not agree with that point or acknowledge that there are likely to be cases when the Government or public authorities would not think that our House of Lords, or whichever of the highest courts had ruled on the matter, had given a ruling in accordance with what was likely to be Strasbourg law, and would want the matter to continue to Strasbourg.
It is not good enough, in our opinion, for the Government in answer to say that the mechanism to force a case on to Strasbourg already sufficiently exists. It may exist in theory, if I understand the Home Secretary's answer correctly. It is true, as was argued by the Government on that occasion, that, if the Government of the day, having received a declaration of incompatibility, do precisely nothing, citizens will, sooner or later, be


forced to take the matter on to Strasbourg or will find themselves deprived of their remedy—but what an unsatisfactory way in which to proceed.
How long is the citizen—the litigant—to wait? What is the country to assume in the meantime? What is the status today of the hallowed and rightly time-honoured convention that Government will never knowingly break the law? It cannot be satisfactory to leave such matters in limbo.
Having been Attorney-General, I ask myself and the House, in the hope of an answer from the Government, what an Attorney-General would say if there had been a ruling of incompatibility by the House of Lords on a particular aspect, but the Government had taken no steps to correct it. Would the Attorney-General remain silent while the Government considered what to do?
Would that ruling—which, under clause 4(6), would not have any legal effect at that stage—have no effect on the courts? If, the House of Lords having delivered its judgment, a new case came before the courts, could the matter be argued de novo, or would the ruling stand as authority? If the Government have thought about these matters, we should be grateful to hear their conclusions. If they have not thought about them, we should be grateful if they would do so and would tell us their conclusions at some future date, although it would be preferable to hear them now. It cannot be satisfactory to leave such matters in limbo.
The individual citizen and the country at large are entitled to be told within a reasonable time—we suggest six weeks—whether the Government intend to change the law and, again within a reasonable time, how they propose to do so. If they do not intend to change the law, the citizen and the country should be told. The citizen could then take his case to Strasbourg. There would be a proper mechanism, certainty and comparative expedition. However, what the Government seem to propose is a recipe for confusion, delay and injustice.
Although I said that such problems would, I hope, be rare, I also said that they were not fanciful. One only has to look across the Atlantic to see what powers the courts have taken for themselves under their own constitutions. Periods of judicial passivity can be followed by periods of judicial activism. The classic example—I hope that it is not thought too high flown—is the American constitution, which showed itself inadequate, despite its fine phrases, to protect its citizens from slavery, but has more recently been construed so as to overturn the views of the legislature on the subject of abortion.
Likewise in Canada, the courts have struck down the federal law and state laws on abortion. We hope that that would not happen here, but fashions change. The language of the convention is certainly broad enough to provide pegs on which the courts could hang an argument to intervene. If they were to do so, on that example most people would probably think that the judges had seriously overstepped the mark. They would want a particular case to be brought to Strasbourg to challenge and to test such a serious extension of judicial power. We would certainly wish to have it tested at Strasbourg, yet at present, no satisfactory mechanism exists to enable that to be done.
Even at this late stage of the Bill, we call on the Government to think again on this matter and, I hope, to accept our amendment. I am not saying that it is perfectly

drafted, but it is carefully drafted, and if it needs polishing, let it be polished. If that involves a little ping-pong between this House and the other place, let that take place. Above all, let us get this right.
Our new clause establishes a straightforward and workable system under which everyone knows where they stand. If a case needs to go on to Strasbourg, the litigant can take the necessary steps without uncertainty or delay. If not, he can await with confidence some appropriate amendment of the law by the House. Above all, it will make it clear to our courts and judiciary that the House does not intend to set up the convention as a substitute constitution. I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Garnier: Let me begin by correcting something that I said earlier. I believe that the Home Secretary's response to my few remarks in Committee began not in column 1127, but in column 1119. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has spent many a happy hour since last June reading Hansard in order to hone his arguments in time for today's debate.
I commend what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) has said, not least because, to a degree, it mirrors what I said in Committee last June. I say that not because I consider myself to be a man of great original thinking, but because all people of good will and common sense who have given the matter some thought will have reached the same conclusions as my right hon. and learned Friend and me. Indeed, much of what I said on 24 June flowed from discussions that I had on the telephone with my right hon. and learned Friend when he was on his sickbed.
Be that as it may, I hope that, over the recess and in the hours available to him when he has not been dealing with other matters, the Home Secretary has had an opportunity to reconsider his response to what I said in Committee on 24 June. Although he was, as always, very courteous in dealing with my arguments, I am not sure that he did himself or the Committee justice in responding to what I had said on behalf of the official Opposition.
Let me take the Home Secretary back to 24 June, and column 1121 of Hansard. He said—just before an intervention by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan)—
Therefore, although I understand the point of new clause 2, it would not achieve anything. Nothing in it could not equally be achieved—and will not equally be achieved—within the framework of the Bill as it stands.
I regret to say—because I do not like being unduly controversial—that the Home Secretary missed not only the point, but the points. I fear that, unless it is amended to include new clause 2, the Bill will remain deficient, and will remain a source of aggravation and difficulty between the House, as the originator of legislation, and institutions and citizens who may, from time to time, come up against either the Government or Government institutions in complaining about the implications of the European convention on human rights under the Bill.
The points that I sought to make in my short contribution on 24 June were, I hope, reasonably clear. My first point was that we were left with an imbalance between Government and citizen. It seems to me that in any litigation, there should be fairness, if not parity,
between the two parties to the action. In my view, each party—be it citizen or Government—should have the right of appeal to the highest court of appeal in the given system of justice. Under the convention and the Bill, the citizen has the right to take his concerns from the lowest courts—the courts of first instance—through our domestic appeal tribunals, to the court in Strasbourg. The Government do not have that right.
Responding to my point—this is also in column 1121—the Home Secretary said:
New clause 2 seems to be based on two assumptions. The first is that a declaration of incompatibility will have some legal effect unless a ministerial certificate is issued. The second is that the Government must make a remedial order following a declaration of incompatibility.
However, he went on to say that there may be occasions when the Government might not do those things, which leaves the legal situation in a state of uncertainty.
Although there are advantages politically in leaving things in a state of uncertainty, as the Government demonstrate day by day, there are higher demands on a justice system than there are on party political interest. Where a Government, albeit ably assisted by men of integrity such as the Home Secretary, allow themselves to be led into a position where the citizen is unfairly advantaged compared with the opposite party in the litigation—the public institution, alias the Government—in the ability to appeal to the highest court, there is a glaring uncertainty, which our new clause would adequately deal with.
As I say, I do not like chiding the Home Secretary. I hope that he will see the reasonableness of the arguments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire and myself—on this and the previous occasion—and that they will convince him of the good sense of new clause 2.
It troubles me that the Home Secretary said on the previous occasion:
Nor is there any obligation on the Government to remedy any incompatibility by means of a remedial order."—[Official Report, 24 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 1121.]
If there is incompatibility, it should be remedied; otherwise there is no point in introducing into domestic law the terms of the European convention. I urge the Home Secretary either to come up with some new and better arguments, or to accede to our new clause.

Mr. Straw: I am delighted to see the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) in his place and, I hope, fully recovered from his ills. He began his speech with some uncharacteristic hyperbole: with claims that we were damaging our constitution. I shall simply take that incantation as a necessary step that all Opposition Front Benchers have to go through. Then, because he was obviously uncomfortable with what I think is widely recognised in the House as wide of the mark, in relation to this Bill anyway, he went on to make his case in his usual reasoned way, joined by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).
I do not dismiss the arguments of the Opposition, but nor do I agree with them, and I should like to explain why. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire asks me first, and it is an important point,

to confirm that we do not view this Bill as a substitute for a written constitution for the United Kingdom. The answer is that we do not.
It is precisely because we have been determined that it should not be a substitute written constitution for the UK that we have structured the Bill in the manner that we have and, in particular, ensured that no court in this land, not even the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, can place itself in the position of sovereignty over the High Court of the elected Parliament.
We looked at various ways in which the European convention could be incorporated. We looked at the experience of not only continental countries—I accept what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire says about the differences that arise because of the fundamental distinction between our common law tradition and their civil law traditions—but Commonwealth countries. They have not incorporated the European convention on human rights because they are not within the continent, but New Zealand and Canada, for example, have incorporated Bills of Rights, often drawn on the European convention, into their domestic law. Some of those countries have chosen to structure their incorporation legislation so that their bill of rights emerges as basic law.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire spoke about "black letter" law, and I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough for providing further and better particulars of the definition of such law. In countries that have written constitutions, there is not only statute law passed by the congress or Parliament but fundamental or—to use the continental term—basic law, which is the constitution itself. The constitution overrides, and is promulgated differently from, ordinary law.
If we had stated in the Bill that courts could not only declare incompatible any statute of this Parliament but override those statutes and declare them unenforceable, thereby abrogating them, we would have been establishing—either by the front or back door—a substitute written constitution for the United Kingdom. We would have been altering what I regard as a fundamental position established in our constitution: the sovereignty of Parliament. I think that one of the profound strengths of our system is that, although we may bind ourselves to the European Union, to United Nations treaties or to the European convention, we do not bind ourselves for ever, and that it remains open to this Parliament, at any stage that it chooses, to decide to withdraw from those conventions. Although we would, of course, have to accept the consequences of withdrawing, the decision would be made by this elected Chamber and the other place and by no one else.
The Government thought—there was no great argument about the matter, but it was important that we should deal with all the arguments—that it was important to enshrine Parliament's sovereignty in the Bill. We therefore developed the scheme of declarations of incompatibility. We did not propose that the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords should have the power to override Acts of Parliament by stating that, because they were incompatible with the convention, they were unenforceable and of no effect.
We said that the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords would be able to declare whether, in its opinion, an Act of Parliament was incompatible with the convention,


and subsequently to refer the matter back to the Government, which is answerable to Parliament. In the overwhelming majority of cases, regardless of which party was in government, I think that Ministers would examine the matter and say, "A declaration of incompatibility has been made, and we shall have to accept it. We shall therefore have to remedy the defect in the law spotted by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords." Therefore—as has been discussed in previous debates, and will be discussed again today—we have included in the Bill procedures for remedial orders. It is also always open to Ministers to introduce amending legislation in the normal way.
It is possible that the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords could make a declaration that, subsequently, Ministers propose, and Parliament accepts, should not be accepted. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire mentioned abortion, which provides a good example. Although I hope that it does not happen, it is possible to conceive that, some time in the future, a particularly composed Judicial Committee of the House of Lords reaches the view that provision for abortion in either the United Kingdom or part of the United Kingdom is incompatible with one or another article of the convention. Although the Committee would be entitled to say that such provision was incompatible with the convention, such a view would create very great controversy and, in some quarters, considerable social anxiety.
We judged that, in that event, it would be wrong simply to accept what the Committee had said, and that a right to abortion, albeit quite properly limited and developed in this country over a period of 30 years, should suddenly be cast aside. My guess—it can be no more than that—is that whichever party was in power would have to say that it was sorry, that it did not and would not accept that, and that it was going to continue with the existing abortion legislation.
I want to pick up two further points made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire.

Mr. Garnier: Is the Home Secretary entirely satisfied with the argument that he is deploying? He cannot have it both ways. Either the Government are introducing into British domestic law the convention on human rights—or the bits that they have identified—and are setting up mechanisms whereby the courts can make declarations of compatibility or incompatibility, or they are not. If the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, in its court capacity, says that certain legislation—on, say, abortion—is incompatible with the convention, and if the Government, speaking through their Ministers in the House of Commons, say, "You may say that, but we don't care and we don't intend to do anything about it," there is a lacuna in the constitution, which is unsatisfactory. The highest court in the land will be saying one thing, while Parliament, through its elected Members, will be saying another. That will lead to friction. With respect to the Home Secretary, it is no good his saying that he will

leave it like that and will rely on clause 4(6). That leaves a vacuum that needs to be filled, and it will be filled by public dissension.

Mr. Straw: I do not accept that. Yes, indeed we would rely, as would any Ministers, on clause 4(6). That is its purpose. It does not leave a lacuna, because it states:
A declaration under this section (`a declaration of incompatibility')—

(a) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given; and
(b) is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made."

That means that, as long as the Government, with the House's approval, say that they do not accept the declaration of incompatibility, the
validity, continuing operation or enforcement
of, in this case, the abortion legislation, would continue. I shall develop that point later.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I have been listening extremely carefully to the Home Secretary. I am grateful that we agree on the key point that the Bill is not to become a substitute constitution. I hesitated before getting to my feet, because I felt that the Home Secretary might be going to deal with this point, but what worries me—this formed the second part of my speech—is how the citizen will know where he or she stands. There is no structure in the Bill to force a Minister, or to enable a public authority through a Minister—we have suggested the latter—to say that, if there is no agreement and if someone wants to pursue a case, the case must go to Strasbourg, and new clause 2 would remedy that.
I do not want my intervention to be too long, but I want to make one more point. Let us consider a case that must be exercising the Home Secretary, just as it exercised me. It is that of Phyllis Bowman and the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child and the effect of that case on our election law—that 24,000 or so leaflets could be put through the doors of the constituents of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). That seems to have driven a coach and horses through our election law.
Had that been the ruling of the House of Lords—although I do not think that it would have been—I am sure that it would be a good example of the kind of case that we would wish to push to Strasbourg to try to get it overturned as being a step too far. How would citizens know where they stood? How would Phyllis Bowman know where she stood? That is why we need an answer.

Mr. Straw: The Phyllis Bowman case has caused difficulties that we intend to address in future legislation, because the decision was taken by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and not by our domestic courts.
For the sake of argument, let us assume that an equivalent judgment had been made in the form of a declaration of incompatibility by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. It has been suggested that the Government would hide away and refuse to explain their position. Within five minutes of such a judgment being made, the Government would be asked for their position. If I happened to be the relevant Minister, I should say that we would study the judgment and no doubt consult the Law Officers, but within a matter of weeks we would


have to explain our position, and quite rightly, too. If we did not volunteer our position—that would be an abdication of good government—we would be brought to the House to explain ourselves.
In those circumstances, there would be a number of options. First, we could accept the declaration of incompatibility and bring forward remedial orders, and that is a straightforward process. Secondly, we could make a compromise and say that we half accepted it—a solution that normally appeals to Ministers and their legal advisers—and cobble something together. [Interruption.] I speak in general terms.
Thirdly, we could say that we were very sorry, but we disagreed with it. Assuming that we gained the support of the House in that, we could say that we did not accept it for very good reasons and that the current law was right. Then the party to the proceedings—in this case, Mrs. Bowman—would say either, "This is no good. I am going to take the case to Strasbourg," or, "I have fought the good fight and I will put up with what has happened." In the first case, she would exercise her right of appeal and go to Strasbourg. Meanwhile, we would continue to apply the existing law unless and until there was an adverse judgment in Strasbourg.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there has to be some certainty about the law. The alternative is that Mrs. Bowman, as the initiator of the proceedings, would decide not to proceed to Strasbourg, in which case, notwithstanding the declaration of incompatibility, the existing electoral law would continue to be valid and would continue in its operation and enforcement.
Precisely because of that, and with respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I genuinely do not see that there is any need whatsoever for Government to be given a right of appeal to Strasbourg. Why should the House have a right of appeal to Strasbourg when simply doing nothing but saying that we did not accept a declaration of incompatibility would put it in the position it wanted? What is the point?
Let me make this point particularly to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough: it would have been necessary to give the Government and public authorities a right of appeal in respect of an adverse declaration of incompatibility in the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords had the Bill provided that decisions and judgments of the Judicial Committee overrode decisions by the House. If we had made the House subordinate to a supreme court, of course we would need a right of appeal to Strasbourg, as we would then have been providing a written constitution, and, essentially, vesting the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights with the function of a supreme court and removing the sovereignty of Parliament. We have not gone down that route.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The cavalry is waiting to come to the Home Secretary's rescue. I have listened carefully to him and it is clear to me that either I have failed to get my point across or he does not understand the structure of his Bill. The purpose of the new clause is not to give the Government and public authorities a right of appeal, because it is not within the power of the House to do so. I am sure that the Home Secretary understands that. Only by changing the convention could the Government be given a right of appeal to Strasbourg. The convention gives the right to citizens only. That is the reason for the somewhat convoluted structure of the new clause, which those who have read it carefully will have noticed.
The new clause would do exactly what the Home Secretary says he will do. I was fascinated to listen to the Home Secretary telling the House that the Government will follow the structure that we have recommended in the new clause. If the Government agree with that, they should put it on the statute book. Otherwise, the citizen will not know where he stands. Will the Home Secretary please answer that point?

Mr. Straw: The proposition before the House on 24 June was that there should be a right of appeal exercised by the Government.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I drafted the new clause before 24 June. Its purpose is the same today, and it means what it says.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. David Lock: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Lock: I have listened to the debate with enormous interest, and it seems somewhat bizarre. Are not our opponents are making two criticisms of the Bill: first that it takes sovereignty from the House; and secondly that it politicises the judiciary? They are now proposing a new clause that will result in judges telling the House what it has to do, and will kick-start a political process—both of which consequences they vehemently oppose. I do not understand the logic or consistency of their position. Does my right hon. Friend agree with that analysis?

Mr. Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I am glad about what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire has said, because we have narrowed the ground considerably. He accepts what I say about the nature of the process and asks us to accept the new clause. However, we do not believe that it is necessary. All the processes that I have described are bound to happen anyway.
The hon. and learned Member for Harborough said that some great lacuna might develop—not a minor procedural hole, but a substantive black hole on the enforcement of the law. I do not think that I am misinterpreting him when I say that he was talking about a limbo developing in which no one knew where they were. People will know where they are. There is no question about that, because the situation will be clear. The speed of the Government response will depend on the complexity of what is handed down from the other place and on other matters, but the Government will respond.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: This leaves me breathless after 11 years in government. The idea that the Government come leaping forward with clear answers to difficult questions immediately does not correspond with the experience of any parliamentarian who has been in the House for any time. That is clearly not the Home Secretary's experience. The judgment on Bowman and the SPUC has stood for many months and we have not heard a whisper on how it should be dealt with. The Chahal judgment has stood for more than a year and we have not


heard a whisper on that. The Home Secretary is saying that a report to the House as suggested in the new clause will happen in practice. That defies experience.

5 pm

Mr. Straw: I do not accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. He mentioned the Chahal case; it makes our point, not his. We have acted on the issuing of the judgment. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act has provided a remedy to the mischief identified by the European Court in the Chahal case. That is a very good example. Since the original Chahal decision was made under the Government of whom he was a member, it is fair to point out that, quite quickly after the Chahal judgment, the previous Administration said what they needed to do, and got on with it.
The other point to be made about the Chahal judgment was that it was made by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and not by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. Had it been a judgment of the Judicial Committee and had the Bill been in force, it would have been open to the Government to say, "We do not accept this, and we shall simply run the procedures of the Immigration Act 1971 as we always have." They would have been very unwise to do that in that circumstance, because it would have been obvious that, since the matter was one of the liberty of a subject, there would be an appeal to Strasbourg, which almost certainly the Government would have lost. The Government may have decided—such considerations must be borne in mind—that it was worth taking such a risk for other reasons of state.
The new clause, which would tie us down, anticipates that, wherever there is a question of an incompatibility and it has not been the subject of a remedial order, there is likely to be an appeal to the European Court. I have already explained that there may not be such an appeal. Despite all the arguments about some hole developing in law enforcement, the default setting is the status quo.
My very last point is on the issue of both sides having a right of appeal—something that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough mentioned. He implied that the new clause was somehow a paver for both sides having a right of appeal. To dispose of that, I hope that I have satisfied the House that a circumstance in which both sides have the right of appeal would be incompatible with the sovereignty of Parliament and could arise only if, say, we had gone down the track of accepting that the European convention was a substitute for a written constitution and that Parliament would be subordinate to European courts. We do not intend to go down such a track.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I apologise to the Home Secretary for intervening again, but this is the last time that I can draw out from him the key point. As—I think—he accepts, it is not possible for any member state to create a right of appeal for Governments or public authorities without the agreement of all other member states. However, if we want issues to be taken to Strasbourg, we must have a structure whereby the Government or public authorities can legitimately refuse to abide by a declaration of their own courts, thus forcing the citizen to go to Strasbourg. The Home Secretary rightly pointed out that clause 4(6) provides a good deal of what is required in that direction.
Where the Home Secretary's argument does not, in my opinion, meet the requirements both of effective justice and proper legislation, is when he says that the Government will always come forward promptly with a declaration about what they will do, despite the fact that there will be nothing on the statute book to say that they should do so. We are relying entirely on the alertness of the Government to achieve what is suggested by new clause 2.
We do not seem to disagree in principle about the need to achieve what the new clause suggests. Taking my last opportunity to ask the Home Secretary to reconsider, I submit that it would be wiser for him to accept new clause 2 and take it on to the statute book. There would then be a framework enabling all citizens involved in litigation—and, what is more, the far greater number of citizens interested in the outcome of such litigation—to know where they stood.
At the moment, that is not clear; the position is dependent on the efficiency and good will of the Government. I do not doubt their good will, but with difficult issues, especially those involving public authorities, and perhaps equally those involving the Government themselves, the likelihood is that there would be periods of delay and uncertainty, and people would not know where they stood. The statement that a ruling of the Judicial Committee was to have no effect would cause great confusion.
I ask the Home Secretary—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is extending the right of intervention much too far.

Mr. Straw: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that this will be my last point.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman would have a point if we were simply relying on the efficiency and good will of the Government, but we are not. We are relying on the black letter of clause 4(6). The default setting, which everybody knows about, is that a declaration of incompatibility by the Judicial Committee or the House of Lords
(a) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given; and
(b) is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made.
There is certainty there.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me what would happen with the lower courts, and whether they would follow the judgment. No, they would not, because clause 4(6) is clear: a declaration does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provisions in respect of which it is given. There is absolute clarity there. In a judicial and political sense, the status quo ante would apply. Then, obviously, the Government would have to consider, and in most cases they would consider the position pretty rapidly. No time limit is set down, but the reverse could not apply. We could not, for example, say that the declaration of incompatibility would have force unless or until the Government said the reverse. That would create considerable uncertainty, and that would be one of the effects of new clause 2.
I understand the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends have made, and the debate has been illuminating, at least in making it clear that there is understanding on both sides of the House that giving the Government a substantive right of appeal to the European Court in Strasbourg would be outwith the structure of the convention.
I think that there is also understanding that that would be unnecessary for the Government, given the structure of the Bill. The issue comes down to one of procedure when there is a declaration of incompatibility. I am not making a nit-picking point about the phraseology or drafting of the new clause, because of course, if we accepted the principle behind it, those could be dealt with by the draftsmen.
However, the overall effect would be different from what I believe is the clearer idea contained in clause 4(6). That is why I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw his new clause. If he does not, we shall have to resist it.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am sorry for making a long intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this is a very important point. I shall not withdraw the new clause, for this fairly straightforward reason. This will be a real, practical problem. The Attorney-General, speaking to the Bar conference this year, made the point that there will need to be a great deal of training in the matter. We shall see a lot of human rights cases—

Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: indicated assent.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is nodding to me, recognises that.
There will be a great many attempts to make human rights points, particularly in the criminal sector—for example, in relation to manners of arrest. From time to time, there will be rulings that are adverse to our existing law and that we may or may not wish to accept. The Government will have to think about those matters, and decide whether they will amend the law in this House or whether they want the matter to go to Strasbourg on the basis that our courts have gone too far and that Strasbourg will give a wider margin of appreciation or discretion to us, as a member state, to make our own law. Unless there is a proper structure—whereby the Government come forward within a reasonable time to state what is happening—the courts will be in real difficulty.
I do not think that the Home Secretary understands the point, and I ask him to focus on it for a second. It is no good for the House to point to clause 4(6) and say that, because the clause states that a declaration of incompatibility shall have no effect on the law of this land, the rulings of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords will not be followed in the lower courts in the meantime. It would be a recipe for absurdity for the lower courts—during a lacuna in which we say nothing—to pay no attention to a House of Lords ruling on a point of criminal procedure in this context until we amended the law. It would be far better for the Government to be clear, and for them to have a statutory requirement to come forward promptly to say either what they are doing or that the matter must go to Strasbourg.
In the interests of clarity and good legislation, I am afraid that I must ask the House to divide on this issue.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 372.

Division No. 363]
[5.11 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Amess, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Lansley, Andrew


Arbuthnot, Rt. Hon James
Leigh, Edward


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Letwin, Oliver


Baldry, Tony
Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)


Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)
Lidington, David


Bercow, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)


Blunt, Crispin
Loughton, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Luff, Peter (Mid-Worcs)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Brady, Graham
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Brazier, Julian
Mackay, Rt Hon Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Madel, Sir David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Malins, Humfrey


Burns, Simon
Maples, John


Butterfill, John
Mates, Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis



May, Mrs Theresa


Chope, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Clappison, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington & Chelsea)
Norman, Archie



Ottaway, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Paige, Richard


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Paice, James


Collins, Tim
Paterson, Owen


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Pickles, Eric


Cran, James (Beverly)
Prior, David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)
Randall, John



Redwood, Rt Hon John


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Robathan, Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Robertson, Laurence (Tewkesbury)


Duncan Smith, Iain



Evans, Nigel
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Fabricant, Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham & Mid-Kent)


Flight, Howard



Forsythe, Clifford
Ruffley, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
St. Aubyn, Nick


Fox, Dr. Liam
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gale, Roger (N Thanet)
Shepherd, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Gill, Christoper
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spring, Richard


Gray, James (N Wilts)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Green, Damian
Steen, Anthony


Greenway, John
Streeter, Gary


Hague, Rt Hon William
Swayne, Desmond


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Syms, Robert


Hawkins, Nick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hayes, John (S Holland)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Townend, John


Horam, John (Orpington)
Tredinnick, David


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Trend, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tyrie, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Walter, Robert


Jenkin, Bernard
Wardle, Charles


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whitney, Sir Raymond



Whittingdale, John


Key, Robert (Salisbury)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Ann






Wilkinson, John
Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)


Willetts, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilshire, David



Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Mr. Stephen Day and Mr. Nigel Waterson.


Woodward, Shaun





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge and Chryston)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)



Alexander, Douglas
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Allan, Richard
Clelland, David


Allen, Graham
Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale and Darwen)
Coaker, Vernon



Coffey, Ms Ann


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Cohen, Harry


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Coleman, Iain


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cooper, Yvette


Atkins, Charlotte
Corbett, Robin


Austin, John
Corston, Ms Jean


Baker, Norman
Cotter, Brian


Ballard, Jackie
Cousins, Jim


Banks, Tony (West Ham)
Cranston, Ross


Barnes, Harry
Crausby, David


Barron, Kevin
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bayley, Hugh
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Beard, Nigel
Cummings, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Curtis-Thomas, Claire


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dafis, Cynog


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, Andrew F.
Darvill, Keith


Benton, Joe (Bootle)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Berry, Roger
Davidson, Ian


Best, Harold
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Blizzard, Bob
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dawson, Hilton


Borrow, David
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bradley, Keith (Manchester Withington)
Denham, John



Dismore, Andrew


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)


Bradshaw, Ben
Donohoe, Brian H.


Brake, Tom (Carshalton)
Dowd, Jim (Lewisham)


Brand, Dr. Peter
Drown, Ms Julia


Breed, Colin
Eagle, Anqela (Wallasey)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Eagle, Maria (Liverpool Garston)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Edwards, Huw


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Efford, Clive


Buck, Ms Karen
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Burden, Richard
Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)


Burgon, Colin
Etherington, Bill


Burnett, John
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fisher, Mark


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Cable, Dr. Vincent
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Mrs Anne (Cambridge)
Flynn, Paul (Newport W)


Campbell, Menzies (NE fife)
Follett, Barbara


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Don (Bath)


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings and Rye)


Caplin, Ivor



Casale, Roger
Foster, Michael J. (Worcester)


Caton, Martin
Fyfe, Maria (Glasgow Maryhill)


Chaytor, David
Galloway, George


Chidgey, David
Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)


Chisholm, Malcolm
George, Andrew (St. Ives)


Clapham, Michael
George, Bruce (Walsall S)



Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Rt Hon Dr. David (S Shields)
Gibson, Dr. Ian



Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Godman, Dr. Norman A.


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Godsiff, Roger





Goggins, Paul
Kingham, Ms Tess


Golding, Mrs Llin
Kirkwood, Archy


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Kumar, Dr. Ashok


Gorrie, Donald
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Laxton, Bob (Derby N)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Lepper, David


Grocott, Bruce
Leslie, Christopher


Grogan, John
Levitt, Tom (High Peak)


Gunnell, John
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Linton, Martin


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Livingstone, Ken


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Lock, David (Wyre F)


Hanson, David
Love, Andrew


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McAllion, John


Harris, Dr. Evan
McCabe, Steve


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Healey, John
McDonagh, Siobhain


Heath, David (Somerton)
McDonnell, John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hepburn, Stephen
McIsaac, Shona


Heppell, John
McKenna, Rosemary


Hesford, Stephen
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Hodge, Ms Margaret
McNulty, Tony


Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
MacShane, Denis


Home Robertson, John
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)
McWalter, Tony


Hoon, Geoffrey
McWilliam, John


Hope, Phil (Corby)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mallaber, Judy


Howells, Dr. Kim
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hoyle, Lindsay
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford and Urmston)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury and Atcham)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Martlew, Eric


Hurst, Alan (Braintree)
Maxton, John


Hutton, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Iddon, Dr. Brian
Merron, Gillian


Illsley, Eric
Michael, Alun


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead and Highgate)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)



Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll)


Jackson, Helen (Sheffield Hillsborough)
Miller, Andrew



Mitchell, Austin


Jenkins, Brian
Moonie, Dr. Lewis


Johnson, Alan (Hull W)
Moore, Michael


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Moran, Ms Margaret



Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and U Nithsdale)


Jones, Barry (Alyn)



Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Morgan, Julie (Cardiff N)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverhampton SW)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)



Mudie, George


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, Dr. Lynne (Birmingham Selly Oak)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)



Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Naysmith, Dr. Doug


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Oaten, Mark (Winchester)


Keeble, Ms Sally
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Keen, Alan (Feltham)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Keen, Ann (Brentford)
O'Hara, Eddie


Keetch, Paul
Öpik, Lembit


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Kemp, Fraser
Palmer, Dr. Nick


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye and Inverness W)
Pearson, Ian



Pendry, Tom (Staybridge)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Perham, Ms Linda


Khabra, Piara S.
Pickthall, Colin


Kidney, David
Pike, Peter L.


Kilfoyle, Peter
Plaskitt, James


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green and Bow)
Pond, Chris (Gravesham)



Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)






Pound, Stephen
Stoate, Dr. Howard


Powell, Sir Raymond
Strang, Rt Hon Dr. Gavin


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stringer, Graham


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Prosser, Gwyn
Stunell, Andrew


Purchase, Ken
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Quinn, Lawrie
Swinney, John


Radice, Giles
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rammell, Bill



Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Reid, Dr. John (Hamilton N. and Bellshill)
Thomas, Gareth R. (Harrow W)



Tipping, Paddy


Rendel, David
Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)


Rogers, Allan
Tonge, Dr. Jenny


Rooker, Jeff
Touhig, Don (Islwyn)


Rooney, Terry
Trickett, Jon


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Truswell, Paul


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Roy, Frank (Motherwell)
Turner, Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)


Ruddock, Ms Joan



Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Turner, Dr. George (NW Norfolk)


Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)



Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)


Salter, Martin
Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)


Sanders, Adrian
Vis, Dr. Rudi


Savidge, Malcolm
Wallace, James


Sawford, Phil
Walley, Ms Joan


Sedgemore, Brian
Ward, Ms Claire


Shaw, Jonathan
Wareing, Robert N.


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Watts, David


Shipley, Ms Debra
Webb, Steve (Northavon)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Welsh, Andrew


Singh, Marsha
White, Brian


Skinner, Dennis
Whitehead, Dr. Alan


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe and Lunesdale)




Williams, Alan W. (E Carmarthen and Dinefwr)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)



Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Winnick, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenaw Gwent)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Sir Robert W. (Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
Wise, Audrey



Wood, Mike (Batley)


Soley, Clive
Woolas, Phil


Southworth, Ms Helen
Worthington, Tony


Spellar, John
Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)


Starkey, Dr. Phyllis
Wright, Dr. Tony (Cannock)


Steinberg, Gerry
Wyatt, Derek


Stevenson, George



Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. Clive Betts.


Stinchcombe, Paul

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 3

CONSULTATION AND GUIDANCE PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ACT

'The Secretary of State shall, before making an order under section 22(3) of this Act—

(a) provide guidance to public authorities on the steps which they need to take to comply with section 6 of this Act,
(b) consult public authorities, and such other bodies and persons as he may consider appropriate, on the most effective long term arrangement for providing public authorities, and persons who may wish to exercise their rights under section 7 of this Act, with advice and assistance on their respective responsibilities and rights under this Act,

(c) include within that consultation the options for establishing a Human Rights Commission to fulfil those functions, and
(d) inform Parliament of the outcome of that consultation:—[Dr. Tony Wright.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Tony Wright: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I move the new clause because I hope that the House will think it important and worth while. Also, it enables Members who are not lawyers to join in the debate, which is always refreshing during proceedings on this Bill.
As we reach the closing stages of this important Bill, the question is whether any gaps remain to be filled—gaps that might prevent the Bill from delivering its potential. We believe that there are such gaps, and seek, tentatively, to fill them by means of the new clause. It argues that, for the Bill to be effective, it will need some underpinning which is not in place and will not be unless the Government put it there. This is the moment when they should do so. They have put such support in place for every previous similar human rights measure—for example, with the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality—that has extended and strengthened human rights.
In each of those cases, albeit 20 years ago, it was believed that some institutional structure should be put in place to ensure that the rights being enshrined in a Bill would be operational in practice. It was necessary to ensure that people could access the rights and that something would happen after the House had passed the measure. That legislation was given the necessary institutional support, and it is crucial for a similar approach to be taken with this measure.
It is crucial, too, that prevention issues be dealt with; for example, how we can prevent cases from even arising by developing good practice in public bodies and private bodies charged with public functions. How can we promote access to justice? How can we advise and assist the people who might benefit from the provisions of the Bill? How can we promote awareness of human rights and develop a real human rights culture in this country? How can we scrutinise draft legislation to ensure that it is consistent with the convention and with other human rights obligations to which this country has signed up? How can we advise Government and Parliament? The latter will need an independent source of advice, and this is our opportunity to ensure that it is put in place. For a range of reasons, it is essential at this late stage in the passage of the Bill that we insert a provision to ensure that all that can happen.
The new clause would provide the support that the Bill requires. As hon. Members may see, it asks the Government to take three steps prior to the Act's coming into force. The first step will be to provide guidance to public authorities on the steps that they need to take to ensure that they comply with the Act.
Everyone who has looked at the Bill knows that it has momentous implications for all public authorities and all private bodies that exercise public functions. The Government accepted that both in this House and in the other place. Indeed, in the other place there was talk of a transformation that would need to occur in the behaviour of public bodies.
It is not difficult to assemble a long list of the issues that public bodies may have to face as a consequence of the Bill. The current issue of Local Government Chronicle carries the dramatic headline "Human rights Act unleashes legal deluge", and contains a long list of the Bill's legal implications for local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke about exaggerated rhetoric and perhaps the article is over the top, but it is not difficult to assemble a wholly convincing list of matters about which public bodies may be required to respond.
5.30 pm
The Institute for Public Policy Research drew up such a list after a series of conferences between practitioners in different fields. It shows—I shall only dip into it—under which articles of the convention public bodies may have to respond. The cases that could arise for health authorities, for example, include, under article 2:
inadequate steps taken to protect/save a life—shortage of resources may be no defence—eg Health Authority's refusal to fund expensive treatment for a child because it would only prolong his life a few months—or for an elderly person … failure to prevent death or injury by providing a senior/experienced enough doctor to carry out an operation … that turning off a life support system for someone in a vegetative state denied his/her right to life … that a foetus's right to life should override a woman's refusal to have a caesarean section".
Cases that may arise for local authorities include, under article 2:
failure to protect the public from known and avoidable dangers—eg a local authority which failed to exercise its enforcement powers against a known polluter".
Cases that may arise under article 8 include a
public landlord's failure to repair or maintain a home—or all of the homes within an estate … local authority's failure to issue an abatement and enforcement notice against a creator of a statutory nuisance—bad neighbour factory in a residential area".
An article 3 case may arise because of
any treatment in residential homes/institutions of the elderly, mentally ill, homeless, young people, asylum seekers, remand prisoners (for example) which could be considered degrading".
The list identifies cases that Government Departments may have to face, such as, under article 8,
refusal to allow children conceived by artificial reproduction to know the identity of their birth parents … deportation of a parent which effectively denies a child the right to family life".
An article 3 case that could arise would be
degrading treatment by a public official".
The list mentions education authorities and schools. Under protocol 1, a case could arise concerning
whether a school's decision to expel a child was proportionate to his/her behaviour".
A case of
whether the suspension of a pupil for writing a critical article about the school in a local paper denied his/her right to education and his/her right to freedom of expression
could arise under protocol 1 and article 10.
One can, without any difficulty, compile an extraordinarily long list of cases that will land on the desks of public authorities. Those of us who have supported the measure and who have long wanted to bring

rights home must not allow the House to be misled about the scale and impact on public bodies of the proposals. We must ask from whom public authorities will obtain the guidance that they will need to know whether they are complying with the Bill. Where is the agency that will provide the public bodies with the help that they will need?
When the race and equal opportunities legislation was enacted, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission were established precisely to provide such guidance for the bodies that would be covered and for the individuals who believed that their rights had been infringed. The commissions were the support mechanisms that underpinned the legislation. As a human rights commission has not been established to fulfil such a function in respect of this Bill, the implications for public authorities are far greater.
Senior lawyers who have been providing training on the implications of the Bill over the past weeks—mostly under the auspices of Justice—have drawn attention to cases of medical negligence, personal injury, environmental health and nuisance, family law, privacy and mental health. They have based their judgments on the cases that have been taken successfully to the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights.
Not only will public bodies need advice prior to the Bill's enactment on the steps that they will have to take to avoid unnecessary litigation; they will also have a continuing need for advice as the case law develops—for example, on how, under article 3, the courts are defining degrading treatment or, under article 8, people's homes and correspondence and the scope of the right to respect private and family life.
Private bodies will urgently need guidance on the definition of public function so that they know whether they are covered by the legislation. Large public authorities and companies may rightly be expected to pay for legal advice, but it is unreasonable to expect voluntary organisations—such as Barnyards, which will be centrally involved in the operation of the measure, or bodies that provide residential care for education—to do so.
The new clause was designed to focus attention on prevention—how we can prevent cases being brought by ensuring that public authorities are behaving as they should. We cannot assume that the Bill's enactment will in itself lead to the culture of awareness to which we all look forward. In the absence of a human rights commission or a similar mechanism, the Government will need to be active in approaching the wide range of organisations to which the Bill applies so that the legislation leads to the desired change in culture rather than to a series of avoidable and expensive cases in the courts. Some training has begun, but there will have to be much more. A concerted and coherent programme is needed, and that must come from an agency that is provided for in the Bill.
The new clause would also require the Government to consult interested parties on the most effective long-term arrangements through which to provide guidance to public authorities and advice and assistance to individuals who believe that their rights have been infringed. In the White Paper and in subsequent debates, the Government have said that they are not convinced that a human rights commission is essential to the successful implementation


of the Bill and that they want a greater consensus on the functions and structure of such a body before they legislate. However, it is clear from that that some arrangement is needed to provide continuing assistance to public bodies and individuals.
Paragraph (b) of the new clause would ensure that the Government take the lead in finding out what the most effective arrangements would be. The Government have, in a sense, conceded that there will need to be such arrangements, and the clause asks them to consult on that and to make those arrangements an integral part of the Bill.
Since the Bill was last debated in the House, the Northern Ireland Bill has been introduced, with its provision for a human rights commission in Northern Ireland. That body will have a responsibility to advise and assist individuals taking cases under the Human Rights Act. That assistance will be available whether a case raises issues related to Northern Ireland's particular problems, or issues which could equally have arisen in Britain, such as infringements of privacy or of the right to education. Such assistance will not be available to people living in Britain, with the exception of disabled people, who will be able to seek assistance from the proposed disability rights commission. Whether it is fair that people in Northern Ireland should have access to such support when people in Britain do not is surely a matter on which, at the very least, the Government should consult.
The Northern Ireland Office does not expect the human rights commission in Belfast to provide guidance to public bodies on their new responsibilities under the Human Rights Act, on the grounds that the provision of such guidance for public bodies throughout the UK will be the responsibility of the Home Office. That therefore leaves a gap.
Finally, there is the third step which the clause asks the Government to take in order to inform Parliament of the outcome of the consultation exercise that they have been invited to put in hand. On a number of occasions, the Government have suggested that Parliament should establish a human rights committee, and have proposed that the committee's first inquiry could be into the question of a human rights commission. We do not know when such a committee is to be established. The House has not considered it, and such a committee is clearly not in place.
It would be appropriate for that committee, if and when it is in place, to be informed of the outcome of the Government's consultation on the kind of arrangements that they think are appropriate and necessary for the Bill, so that it can then consider the issue and in turn make its own recommendation. If the Government fail to take the lead in conducting such a consultation exercise, there will inevitably be a long delay before the human rights committee could give the Government its view—a delay at the very moment when public bodies are in most need of the kind of support that the Act will mean they require.
During that time, the Government would have to be the principal source of guidance to public bodies, and individuals in Britain will have no statutory body to which they can turn for advice and assistance in taking cases under the Act.
Furthermore, it is my firm belief, based upon some little experience of the ombudsman model in Britain—it works well because a committee of the House, of the kind which

has been proposed with the human rights committee, is linked to an external agency—that such a model is needed here if the measure is to be effective. It is because the ombudsman's office and the committee here work in partnership that the model is so effective. One is not a substitute for the other: they should properly be seen as complementary.
I have no desire to invite the Government to invent another quango. I am a fully paid-up member of the quango hunters club, and I have a track record to prove it. A body is only invented when there is a task to be done. I am persuaded—it is a view shared by almost every organisation that has been consulted on the matter—that for the Bill to be effective it will require some underpinning machinery, and that is what the clause affords. If the answer is to be, which it has, albeit obliquely, been, that all machinery is expensive, there is a moment when we have to decide whether we believe in something. If we do and we want it to be effective, it must be sustained and not be trumped by the Treasury saying, "It will cost tuppence ha'penny so we must not have it."
When Back Benchers are being difficult, they always say that they are being helpful, but I intend to be helpful here. New clause 3 is entirely in the spirit of everything that the Government have previously said about the measure. They have talked about the need for further machinery to support the Bill, they have said that they are not persuaded about a particular model—the human rights commission—but that they want to explore the matter further and want the relevant bodies to come to a view. The need for that is still there. The clause translates that acknowledgement of need into some mechanism for doing something about it.
The Bill, hugely important though it is, is only the beginning of a process which will strengthen and extend human rights in Britain. It needs some supporting machinery so that its potential can be fulfilled; the clause enables the Government to ensure that that happens.

Mr. James Clappison: I am sure that the House will agree that we have just listened to a thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). He has clearly given much thought to the consequences of the incorporation of the European convention and the way in which the Government have chosen to achieve that. The House will have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who takes a great interest in these matters. In many ways, he proceeds from the worthiest of motives. He seeks to uphold the human rights culture, as he puts it, and to give the Government advice on the best way to implement the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman gave a long and considered list of possible ways in which the human rights convention could give rise to legal action and, while all are in favour of upholding human rights, it is to be hoped that that will not be at the expense of a descent into sheer litigiousness, which did seem possible from what the hon. Gentleman was saying. We do not want to see the European convention cropping up in every nook and cranny of our relationships with others, but after listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech that seemed a possible outcome.
The hon. Gentleman proceeds from the worthiest of motives. He seeks to improve and underpin the Bill but, in doing so, he has exposed for all to see one of the glaring


weaknesses in the Bill's structural foundation. There is much to be said for what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to require the Secretary of State to do—to consult about the Bill's implementation and to give long-term advice and assistance to public authorities—but what he proposes has one glaring problem which we have come up against time and again in our consideration of the Bill.
New clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to consult public authorities and to give them advice and assistance, but at this point no one can say who or what a public authority is. There is no list in the Bill. The Under-Secretary smiles. He is aware of the problems that this has caused, and he knows the point. It is there for all to see in the Bill. A public authority is a court or tribunal and any person some of whose functions are functions of a public nature.
As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase said, that will include a wide range of organisations, persons and bodies who at this moment may not necessarily feel that they are public authorities. But any of those organisations, which may be private organisations for many purposes, when they carry out a function of a public nature may become a public authority, subject to the provisions of the European convention and therefore at risk of litigation for alleged breach of the convention. That will catch a wide range of organisations. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase gave some examples, and even mentioned charities such as Barnardos. A wide range of people could be brought within the ambit of the Bill.
It is difficult at this stage to say what a public authority is. That is the problem that the Government have come up against in the past. We can go back to a much earlier stage of the Bill and look at the view of an esteemed lawyer, someone who is much wiser than I am in these matters: none other than the Lord Chancellor. In another place he gave the considered opinion, when asked, that the Press Complaints Commission was not a public authority. He then received even more learned and distinguished legal advice—it came from one of my constituents who happens to be a lawyer, so I have to call it learned. That person told the Lord Chancellor that it was possible for the Press Complaints Commission to be a public authority. The Lord Chancellor then had to go back and say that he was wrong.
I am a great admirer of the Lord Chancellor. We are fortunate in having a Lord Chancellor who is so wise that it is good when he is right and even better when he is wrong. He said that it was marvellous for the Press Complaints Commission to be a public authority, because, as such, it would have all the protections available to it under the European convention.
That is an example of the problems that can arise. It is not only an esteemed legal authority such as the Lord Chancellor who has had some difficulty in saying what a public authority is. In another place, Lord Donaldson highlighted this as one of the problems of the Bill. He gave a long list of examples, rather like that given by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, as to what may or may not constitute a public authority. He referred to a public authority as anything that is an emanation of the state, any arm of local government or central Government, and courts and tribunals—they are in the Bill. But his list went on. He said that he believed that it could include the BBC, ITV and the press. He asked:

is Safeways conducting a business of a public nature?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1293.]
He came to the conclusion that it probably was not, but he could not say why. A wide range of organisations and persons will be brought within the definition of a public authority.
We cannot support the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, because we cannot ask the Secretary of State to consult public authorities when it is difficult, if not impossible, to say what a public authority is. The words of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase contain a clear warning that many people should heed. There are many organisations and bodies which may think that they are perfectly private in what they do, but which may brought within the ambit of the Bill as a result of the way the Government have chosen to incorporate the European convention in our law. In the future, they may face all the problems and difficulties that come with litigation.
The hon. Member for Cannock Chase is right to the extent that people need to be aware of the problem that will emerge as a result of the Government's whole approach to this matter.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) was right to draw attention to the wide consequences of the Bill and its broad impact on many aspects of public administration. He was right to draw attention to the need for advice to be made available. Before the election, the Government recognised that quite clearly, and put their hand to an agreement with the Liberal Democrats indicating that they would favour the establishment of a human rights commissioner or commission or a similar public body to discharge that responsibility. It is a matter of some disappointment that the Home Secretary has not felt able to continue the undertakings he gave before entering his high office.
The intellectual basis of the Home Secretary's objection to introducing a human rights commissioner or commission at this stage appears to rest upon the difficulty of reaching agreement about the form it might take, particularly as there are already a number of bodies in existence, to which the hon. Member for Cannock Chase referred in passing, in the context of race relations and equal opportunities, whose roles have not been defined.
Since the introduction of the Northern Ireland legislation and the provisions for setting up a commission in Northern Ireland to deal with exactly the functions in respect of Great Britain with which a human rights commission would be dealing, the basis for objection has disappeared. It seems to be boiling down to nothing more than a penny-pinching unwillingness to foot the bill of establishing a human rights commission. That may prove to be not only penny-pinching but pound foolish, since it is quite possible to envisage—the hon. Member for Cannock Chase did envisage this—that many people might embark upon litigation who might otherwise not do so. That could result in substantial public expenditure in answering cases that might, advisedly, not have been brought.
I have predicted that there will not be a landslide of litigation arising out of this Bill. I do not believe that there is so much action by public authorities or legislation on the statute book that runs foul of the human rights


convention that we could anticipate the need for such a lot of litigation. However, people will try their hand, and they are more likely to do so if they are not given the sort of advice that would be available from bodies cognate to the European Commission of Human Rights and the Equal Opportunities Commission in the wider field of human rights.
It is clear that the House should view with sympathy the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase. I fear that he will not persuade the Government of the basic case for establishing a human rights commission at this stage, so his new clause does not seek to go down that route. It seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to act in substitution for the role of a human rights commissioner.
I suggest that that might have some dangers for the legislation. I agree that the provision of advice and the provision of guidance to public authorities is necessary, but I do not think that that advice should be a prescription of law prior to the enactment of the legislation. There is some doubt at this stage as to the Government's intentions with respect to giving effect to the legislation. What is to be the operative date? When will the order be made under clause 22(3)? Will it be long delayed? I profoundly hope not.
The Government have put in train some work and have found some money to carry out a programme of judicial education on the consequences of the Bill becoming law. However, there can be no public policy merit in a long delay in giving effect to the will of Parliament that, as the Government's White Paper says, rights should be brought home.
I fear that, if we were to accept new clause 3, it could mean the Government embarking upon extensive consultations with public authorities before giving the date for implementation. If one is to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, that process would be extensive, with many bodies involved. It could lead to a great deal of uncertainty if the Government cannot provide legal advice about the effect of their legislation in this or any other area, in an authoritative and binding way. Governments are reluctant to do that, for example in taxation. We would not normally argue that a tax bill should not be implemented until its provisions have been fully understood by those to whom it may apply. The same must be said about this legislation: we cannot wait for the Government to provide advice before giving effect to the Bill.
Although I have considerable sympathy with the arguments outlined by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, and share his broad view about the necessity, if we are to avoid confusion and unnecessary public expenditure, of establishing a public body to fulfil the functions that he described, I cannot bring myself to suggest that the House would be wise to vote for new clause 3. He has, however, performed a valuable service in highlighting the potential problems and the need for the Government to address them. None the less, the manner in which he suggests they should be addressed is inappropriate.
I reaffirm my view and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends that the Government should commit themselves to the modest expenditure of establishing a human rights commission at an early date.

6 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I think that this is the first intervention that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) has made in the parliamentary proceedings on this Bill. I welcome his speech, which he delivered with his customary eloquence, and, most importantly, his "non-lawyerly" eloquence. We must all pay heed to his theme of consultation and guidance if we are to ensure that the Bill is a success.
Clause 22(3) provides for most of the Bill's provisions to be brought into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint. New clause 3 would require the Secretary of State to carry out certain actions before making such an order. One is to provide guidance to public authorities on what they need to do to avoid breaching people's convention rights under the Bill. In general, our laws and procedures comply with the convention. When in the past they have been found by the European Court of Human Rights not to do so, successive Administrations have had a good record of taking action to bring them into line. However, the Bill will render alleged breaches of the convention rights liable to challenge much more easily and quickly in our domestic courts.
We agree that Government Departments and other public authorities should review their legislation and procedures for compatibility with the convention, and consider what amendments are feasible. We are considering ways of providing guidance to help that process along. We shall issue a guidance booklet on the Bill, and provide an overview of the Bill and the convention rights. It will provide advice to help Government Departments and other public authorities comply with their obligations under the Bill. Drafting is at an early stage, but we hope to issue the guidance early in the new year.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will say a little more about our implementation plans when he moves Third Reading shortly. Those will include the establishment of a task force of non-governmental organisations and Government representatives, which will help the Government to prepare for implementation. It is unnecessary to insert in the Bill a provision that expressly requires the Government to provide guidance. No one doubts that guidance is needed before the legislation can begin to operate.
We have reservations about another of my hon. Friend's proposals—to consult on the most effective long-term arrangements, including the options for establishing a human rights commission, to provide advice and assistance to public authorities and those whose convention rights might be breached by their actions.
We do not object to consultation on the human rights convention. Indeed, we would want to encourage discussion on the issue, because there is a lack of consensus, as the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said. That is evidenced in recent documents, such as the book published only last week by the Institute for Public Policy Research, which presents markedly different proposals from those that will operate in Northern Ireland. Thus there is a wide debate yet to be had.
The important point is that the Secretary of State would be prevented from enacting the Bill until he had consulted on the options for a human rights commission. As the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, that could be a prolonged process, particularly if a parliamentary committee on human rights wished to consider the matter. We could not guarantee when it would publish the results of its consideration. It might wish to take evidence, or want the matter to be the subject of a much wider public debate. Implementation of the legislation would therefore have to hang on the completion of that.
As we made clear in the White Paper "Rights Brought Home", which we published last year, our priority is our manifesto commitment to give effect to the convention rights in our domestic law. Establishing a human rights commission in Great Britain is not central to that objective, which is why it does not form part of the Bill.
Before taking the matter further, we want to see how the Bill operates in practice, and to give the proposed parliamentary committee on human rights an opportunity to examine the detailed issues surrounding the establishment of a commission in Great Britain. We do not have a closed mind on the issue of a human rights commission; on the contrary, we want to encourage a healthy debate on it. However, tying the Bill's implementation to some form of statutory consultation would not be helpful, but would merely tie the Secretary of State's hands.
We already know that there is far from being a consensus on this matter. The Equal Opportunities Commission has its own views on its future and how it might tie into a human rights commission. The Commission for Racial Equality has somewhat ambivalent views and has shifted one way and another on the matter. It now seems to suggest that it is in favour, but it is a somewhat lukewarm view. The IPPR' s proposals envisage a federal structure involving the CRE and the EOC being part of a human rights commission while operating independently on equal opportunities issues. The way in which any structure would work is still vague, and we do not know whether it would bring benefits. Much more discussion is needed.
The passing of the Bill will do much that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase seeks. He seeks access to human rights; the Bill will provide that access for ordinary individuals in our courts. He seeks to develop a human rights culture; the Bill will provide the basis for developing that culture in our country.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) rehearsed some of the arguments on definitions of public authorities. If he will forgive me, I shall not pursue him down that route, because the House has already discussed the issue at length. However, I wish to touch on a couple of points made by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. He said—I have some sympathy with his view—that he did not share the fears of the hon. Member for Hertsmere or the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase that there will be a landslide of litigation. There will be a settling-in period in which the courts will have to resolve a number of issues, but I, too, do not anticipate a massive landslide

which will overwhelm the courts, or anything like that. The fears on that account are, as we shall see in due course, likely to be unfounded.
We must start to develop a discussion on these issues. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase that, somehow, the Bill will fail or be less of a success without a human rights commission. There has been criticism that the Bill will fail to achieve the Government's objectives unless it has what my hon. Friend described as the "underpinning" of a human rights commission. We do not accept that. The purpose of the Bill is to give access to convention rights in our courts, rather than people having to incur the cost and delay of going to Strasbourg.
Remedies will be nearer home, and I believe that people will seek them. They will not lack advice. There is tremendous interest in the Bill among non-governmental organisations, the legal profession and academics. I have not the slightest doubt that learned books on how the Bill will affect everyone will be published shortly after it is passed. The result will be the beginning of the strong development of a human rights culture in this country.
A commission is not essential to ensure compliance with convention rights by the Government or public authorities, or to ensure that Parliament can properly carry out its functions of scrutinising legislation. The Bill provides for Ministers to make statements about the compatibility of Government Bills with convention rights, which we believe will enhance the scrutiny of such Bills within the Government. We have also said that we would support the creation of a parliamentary human rights committee with a range of functions relating to human rights.
There are a number of sources of advice, and the fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase about lack of advice will not come to pass. The Bill will deliver what the Government intend. The issue of the human rights commission can be resolved later; there needs to be greater consensus before we move on that. I hope that my hon. Friend will not seek to tie the hands of the Government by pressing the new clause. In view of what I have said, I ask him to withdraw it.

Dr. Tony Wright: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. He said at the outset that this is my first intervention during the passage of the Bill. Indeed it is. Until this point, I had believed, perhaps mistakenly, that I was constrained, as parliamentary private secretary to a Minister closely associated with the Bill, from taking part. If that is not the case, it is good news. As is well known, parliamentary private secretaries are the castrati of political life. I am enjoying having my vital organs returned to me, which explains the nature of my remarks.

Mr. O'Brien: If my hon. Friend had been constrained, or thought that he had been constrained, in any way, the House would have missed his contribution, which I very much welcome. We are all the better for it.

Dr. Wright: That is enough mutual flattery, but I agree with my hon. Friend about one thing: lots of learned books will be published. There is no question that the Bill is good news for academics and terribly good news for lawyers—there will be lots of trade. The point of the new clause is to show that citizens are involved, too, and that


public bodies will be affected by the Bill. We need to provide assistance for them, and they need to get part of the action, too.
I am slightly puzzled by what the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said, because there was an agreement between my party and his that we were committed to a human rights commission. Whatever else the new clause does, it keeps the door open on the idea of such a commission, which his remarks would close. I am puzzled, not for the first time, by what Liberal Democrats say. Although I am one of those who are always in favour of co-operative politics, I sometimes find theory easier than practice.
6.15 pm
What my hon. Friend the Minister said about setting up a task force is interesting. We know that we like task forces—we have a great proclivity for them, and they are useful institutions—but they are not the same as the mechanism that I propose, and should not be confused with it, because they do not provide those support mechanisms.
My new clause does not propose the establishment of a human rights commission. It simply states that there should be consultation about the most appropriate arrangements with which to underpin the Bill, one of which might be a commission. It could not be a more helpful and open-ended new clause, and I am disappointed that the Government cannot support it.
This is one of those occasions on which the House—if it did what it wanted to do or did what it would do if it knew what it was doing—would probably bless a new clause of this kind. Indeed, early-day motions have expressed wide support for it, and we have all kinds of evidence that the outside community, which knows about these things, is in favour, but the House will not support it, even though it would like to, because that is how we operate.
I shall endeavour to keep myself cheerful by hanging on to the words about doors not being closed. I hope that they are true, and that the Government will return to the matter, which is extremely important. Those of us who wish the Bill well and have campaigned for it for a long time think that a commission should be an essential support for it.
I know that this will bring good cheer all round: in trying to cheer myself up, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

INTERPRETATION OF CONVENTION RIGHTS

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'under this Act'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 6 to 22, 24 to 30, 36 and 37.

Mr. O'Brien: This is an array of minor and technical amendments concerned mainly with the operation of the

devolution legislation. In particular, the Bill and the Northern Ireland Bill need to be made consistent with each other, and hon. Members may remember that we undertook a similar exercise in Committee in respect of Scotland and Wales. I am happy to answer questions on the detail of the amendments, but I anticipate that the substance of the debate will relate to the Opposition's remedial orders proposals. Unless hon. Members want me to go through the detail, it may be convenient to move on. No one is suggesting that I should go through all the amendments, so I propose to move on to some of the points that may be raised by the Opposition.
Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 would add to clause 10—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not dealing with that group of amendments. We are dealing with a group of Government amendments. The Minister cannot speak to amendments which have not yet been moved.

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I commend Government amendment No. 5 to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 6, in page 2, line 17, at end insert—
'(aa) by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State, in relation to any proceedings outside Scotland;'.
No. 7, in page 2, line 19, leave out lines 19 and 20 and insert—
'(b) by a Northern Ireland department, in relation to proceedings before a tribunal in Northern Ireland—

(i)which deals with transferred matters; and
(ii)for which no rules made under paragraph (aa) are in force.'.— [Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Clause 5

RIGHT OF CROWN TO INTERVENE

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 3, line 21, at end insert—
'() a Northern Ireland Minister,

() a Northern Ireland department,'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Clause 7

PROCEEDINGS

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 5, line 2, at end insert—
'(aa) in relation to proceedings before a court or tribunal outside Scotland, rules made by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section or rules of court,'.
No. 10, in page 5, line 4, leave out
'the purposes of this section'
and insert 'those purposes'.

No. 11, in page 5, line 5, leave out from 'before' to end of line 7 and insert
'a tribunal in Northern Ireland—

(i)which deals with transferred matters; and
(ii) for which no rules made under paragraph (aa) are in force,

rules made by a Northern Ireland department for those purposes,'.

No. 12, in page 5, line 20, at end insert—
'() "The Minister" includes the Northern Ireland department concerned.'.[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Clause 10

POWER TO TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION

Mr. Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 6, line 34, leave out Clause 10.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 40, in page 7, line 17, at end insert—
'(3A) For the purposes of this section, "compelling reasons" shall be taken to exist where, and only where, a failure to proceed under this section would be likely to jeopardise national security, public health, or the liberty of an individual.'.
No. 41, in page 7, line 17, at end insert—
'(3B)Where the Secretary of State considers that there are compelling reasons for proceeding under this section, he shall, before or at the same time as laying before Parliament a remedial order or draft remedial order, lay before Parliament a written statement of those reasons.'.
No. 39, in schedule 2, page 18, line 36, leave out Schedule 2.

Mr. Garnier: We had an interesting discussion about clause 10 in Committee last June. It is appropriate to revisit some of the arguments that were deployed on that occasion while discussing these amendments. We are returning to this debate on clause 10, which gives the Government the power to amend the law by using a fast-track procedure, because we remain convinced that it is wrong in principle. We have stated that in Committee and my noble Friends have made the point in the other place. On both occasions, the Government have not provided us with any compelling answers.
Bluntly, the clause is designed to increase the power of Ministers, to diminish the role of Parliament, and to weaken our democracy. At this point, I imagine that the Home Secretary wishes to leap to his feet to say that I am being unfair, that this is merely a fallback procedure, and that clause 10(2) makes it clear that it can be used only if a Minister of the Crown considers that there are compelling reasons for doing so.
I shall explore that proviso in a minute, but first I must emphasise that this basic provision, designed to bypass our normal parliamentary procedures, is just one more facet of the Government's attack on our constitution, aimed at increasing the power of the Executive and diminishing the power of the people, through their elected representatives in Parliament, to hold the Government to account.
We are witnessing this centralising grip in every aspect of the Government's so-called modernisation—that grossly over-used word—of our constitution. We see it in their insistence on list systems for elections to the European Parliament: power is taken from the people and given to the party. We see it in the Prime Minister's proposals for proportional representation, as evidenced by the Jenkins commission, which is rigged in its composition and rigged in its terms of reference. We see it in the Prime Minister's half-baked proposals for the so-called reform of the other place, which abolish the rights of hereditary peers because they are

undemocratic and based on the patronage of the past, only to substitute them with a system of patronage and nepotism in which all the power is placed in the hands of—surprise, surprise—the present and much-revered Prime Minister.
Those systems are wrong, and—to give him his due—the Home Secretary knows that they are wrong. It is precisely because he knows that they are wrong in relation to the Bill that he has introduced what is now clause 10(2), which provides that the fast-track system may be used only if Ministers consider that there are compelling reasons to do so. It is further fair to the Home Secretary to say that it is reported that he has strong objections to abolishing our tried and tested system for electing Members of Parliament and replacing it with a system of proportional representation. He, at least, is said to understand that that is wrong for a host of reasons, but particularly because it diminishes the power of the people to choose not only their elected representatives but the complexion of their Government.
We start from the position where even the Government recognise that their proposals for the fast-track procedure—for the diminution of Parliament—are wrong in principle, yet they persist with them. I question whether they understand why they are wrong in principle. I am not sure that they do.
The European convention on human rights is not a system for making laws: it is not a substitute for Parliament. It is a broad framework within which all our laws should be framed and with which our laws must comply. The courts will tell us, after due argument, whether some aspect of our law is incompatible, but it is not for the courts to redesign those laws. They are not equipped to do so. It would be wholly undemocratic if they were to attempt to do so. That is the role of Parliament. What possible justification is there for the Government to diminish the role of Parliament? What are the compelling reasons which are to entitle Ministers to override the rights of the people and of our electorates to be represented in these matters by their chosen representatives? We are not told.
The Government have proposed no definition. I can find nothing in the previous pronouncements of the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor or of any Ministers, here or in the other place, to pin down the circumstances in which these compelling reasons will be considered by Ministers to exist. It is not that there will be too many of these changes and that it would clutter up Parliament. We are told repeatedly by the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary that we expect changes to primary legislation to be rare. I said in Committee in June that there have been only 13 such changes in the 32 years since 1966, when we first granted the right of individual petition to citizens to take their cases to Strasbourg.
Even if there were to be a significant increase in the number of these cases, does that not make it all the more important that there should be full and proper parliamentary scrutiny of any changes to the law? As the Home Secretary knows, I am a lawyer and I have a high respect for lawyers and judges, as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), who is sitting beside me. However, we are not to be ruled by judges, and the courts are not the right place for making laws. The people are not represented in the courts. The judge has to decide the issues brought to him by individual litigants. The duty of the lawyers


representing their clients is not to the public at large, and it is not even to the programme of a party tested before the electorate, but to the aim of winning that particular case to protect the immediate interests of that individual litigant.
The cases to be expected are not all that many, but the issues are seldom trivial. Perhaps the Minister or the Home Secretary will tell us whether triviality is one of the grounds for deciding that the reasons are compelling. Most of the cases involve great issues of real difficulty. Let me illustrate that by reference to the three cases that we all know to be outstanding and requiring legislative change at the present time. I correct myself, because only two cases are now outstanding, as Chahal no longer applies following the immigration legislation that was passed just before the recess.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire has tabled a parliamentary question to the Home Secretary to ask him how many cases he knows of at the moment, but we know of two: Bowman and the recent case about the rights of parents to chastise or not to chastise their children. Both those cases involve complex issues about the liberty of the subject and the security of the state. Are they to be regarded as compelling reasons? I ask that question forensically, as our probing amendment suggests that national security and public health may be compelling reasons for a fast-track procedure, but I emphasise that this is merely a probing amendment. When we have debated it, I intend, with the leave of the House, to withdraw it, for the very consideration of those issues shows how inappropriate it would be in many cases.
Is Parliament not to have a full opportunity to discuss the nature of the necessary court procedures? Is it not to have a full opportunity to discuss, amend and test the Government's proposals in relation to national security, or is the whole thing to be rammed through in a simple three-hour debate and one vote at the behest of the Government of the day? I have observed the number of people in the Chamber this evening, and in the Committee during our debates in June. I do not expect all Members of Parliament to be present for every debate, but it is instructive that all parties are pretty thinly represented this evening. Matters on which we are deciding now and which will be dealt with by remedial orders at the behest of Ministers deserve greater attention, and I fear that they will not get the House's attention in the three-hour debates that clause 10 foreshadows.
The case raised by Bowman is illustrative. We were disappointed, frankly, that the present Attorney-General, for whatever reason, did not go to Strasbourg to argue the case himself. He is an elected Member of Parliament and understands, as probably nobody else in that court building does, the care with which our electoral law has been framed. Now, if we are not careful, a coach and horses is to be driven through that system.
My right hon. and learned Friend touched earlier on the case involving the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and Mrs. Phylis Bowman. They oppose, as is their democratic right, our present abortion laws, and delivered 25,000 leaflets to every household in the constituency of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) personally attacking her for her pro-abortion views on the subject, which differed strongly from their own.
It was the personal attack on the hon. Lady that fell foul of our election law. The society was perfectly entitled to deliver leaflets expressing its views on the issue, and inviting each voter to take that issue heavily into account in deciding how to vote. What happened, however—and what will happen if others are permitted to do likewise—was that our system of a balance of arms, or equality of spending, which governs most people's view of what is a fair system, was deeply undercut. As I have said, we do not know the Government's view. Perhaps they propose to consult—but will they say that, whatever their own conclusion, this is a suitable case to ram through via the fast-track procedure and a debate lasting a mere three hours?
6.30 pm
Then there is the question of the extent to which parents may or may not punish their children. Our present law permits what is described as reasonable chastisement. In one case, a British jury held that the caning administered was not unreasonable. It must be said—with respect to the court—that that may have been a surprising decision. In any event, in recent years the court has on the whole been careful to give a proper margin of appreciation, as the phrase goes—to give proper discretion—to individual member states on domestic matters such as this.
Now the British Government must decide what to do about a delicate and difficult issue, which should be subject to full debate, with a proper opportunity for amendment and reflection on the part of both Houses. It is not suitable for such a measure to be pushed through by means of an unamendable order after a three-hour debate. I am sure that the Minister will accept that, even if he accepts nothing else that is said by the Opposition. Our first request to the Government, and to the Home Secretary, is simply for them to drop clause 10 and to accept our amendment, which would remove it and schedule 2.
The Home Secretary does not need these powers. He has shown us no "compelling reasons" why he should have them, either in terms of business management or in terms of advantage to the citizen—although I suspect that business management may underlie the Government's proposals.
Schedule 2 also demonstrates the Government's growing disregard of Parliament. First, there is its Henry VIII quality. Paragraph 1(1) states:
A remedial order may … contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision as the person making it considers appropriate".
Paragraph 1(2) states that those powers include
power to amend or repeal primary legislation"—
including both primary and subordinate legislation—
other than that which contains the incompatible provision".
Consequential or transitional provisions might be reasonable, but how do the Government propose to justify incidental and supplemental provisions?
What is more, the whole procedure becomes increasingly unparliamentary. To allow for the normal and proper requirements of primary legislation, the schedule provides for draft orders to be laid and for representations to be summarised. As I said in Committee, the power to edit is a power that editors are loth to give up. The power


to summarise is a power that sub-editors are loth to give up. I am afraid that, when the power to summarise representations is given to the relevant Minister, my alarm bells start ringing in clarion.
Changes as a result of representations are to be explained, but what is the excuse for going outside normal parliamentary procedures? Not only do our normal procedures hold the Government to account; they are faster and more flexible than the procedures that are being proposed. The aim is plainly to bypass Parliament and enhance the power of the Executive—and all this is in the name of modernisation.
During our last debate, I crudely commented that clause 10 constituted not so much a Henry VIII clause as a Henry XVI clause. Despite the crudity of my analogy, I do not resile from it. Our request is this: we ask the Government to drop both clause 10 and schedule 2. They will be perfectly able to proceed with primary legislation when faced with a declaration of incompatibility.
We all await with interest the Government's answers to our questions. What are these "compelling reasons" for overriding the rights of the people in Parliament? Where and how will the fast-track procedure benefit the citizen? Is the truth that behind this unjustified measure lies not the good sense of the Home Secretary, but the requirements of his Whips—the business managers—the jackboot of the new Government enforcer and the disregard of Parliament for which the Prime Minister's reputation is increasing daily?
The clause, and the schedule, will return to haunt this Government and this Prime Minister. They will—I trust—be one of the factors that will wipe the smile from the Prime Minister's face in the coming weeks and months. Clause 10 is a dangerous clause, and schedule 2 is a dangerous schedule. I invite the House to agree with us that the Government ought to consider the issue rather more maturely.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I suspect that the Prime Minister's smile will be reinforced when the Bill is passed, and we ensure that human rights are enhanced and ordinary citizens are given access to their rights. That is what the Bill is really about.
The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) commented on the number of hon. Members present. I, too, regret the lack of attenders, but I noted earlier that the number of those present was roughly proportionate to party membership in the House, although it occurred to me that our proposals did not seem to have caused a large number of Opposition Members to rush into the Chamber and express their outrage. Perhaps that is because we cantered through many of the arguments in Committee—although I noted then that not many hon. Members were expressing such outrage.

Mr. Garnier: I am not going to express outrage. I simply wish to remind the Minister gently that mine was not a party political point but a parliamentary point—a House of Commons point. The fact that I was able to make it, although my party is largely unrepresented this evening, reinforces my good will.

Mr. O'Brien: In a sense, I accept that good will. I agree that it would have been better for far more hon.

Members to attend our debates, given the importance of the subject. Mine is a different point, however. My point is that, if Opposition Members had been enormously concerned—if they had felt that our proposals matched the hyperbole that the hon. and learned Gentleman employed at the beginning of his speech—I suspect that far more of them would have been present, complaining about what the Government are doing. That has not happened, because the Government have proceeded thoughtfully and constructively throughout consideration of the Bill, in an attempt to ensure that we take on board the points made by Opposition Members—as well as our hon. Friends—and construct a lasting provision that will genuinely enhance human rights in this country.
Let me deal with the details. Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 would add two new subsections to clause 10. At present, clause 10(2) provides that, if a Minister of the Crown considers that there are compelling reasons for proceeding under clause 10, he may by order make such amendments to the legislation as he considers necessary to remove the incompatibility. Amendment No. 40 would limit "compelling reasons" to cases in which a failure to proceed would be likely to jeopardise national security, public health or the liberty of the individual. Amendment No. 41 would require the Secretary of State—before or at the same time as laying before Parliament a remedial order or draft remedial order—to lay before Parliament a written statement of those reasons.
The requirement for compelling reasons in clause 10(2) is itself a response to concern expressed here and in another place about the remedial order provisions. It is there to make it absolutely clear that a remedial order is not a routine response in preference to fresh primary legislation. We would not want to go further, as in amendment No. 40, and limit "compelling reasons" to the three categories mentioned. There may be other circumstances that constitute compelling reasons sufficient to justify a remedial order: for example, a decision of the higher courts in relation to basic provisions of criminal procedure affecting the way in which, perhaps, all criminal cases must be handled.
An example is a provision that might invalidate a crucial part of the codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, or provisions relating to the detention of suspects. Therefore, there are a number of issues where we would want to proceed with care. We also might need to respond very quickly simply to avoid the criminal justice system in such cases either collapsing or not being able to deliver justice and proper convictions.
"Compelling" is a strong word. We see no need to define it by reference to particular categories. In both the outstanding cases that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough has put to me, our view is likely to be that those would not create the compelling reasons that would justify a remedial order. In any event, on those issues—electoral law and chastising children—everyone would expect primary legislation rather than a remedial order. I hope that that gives some reassurance.
I noted that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said that this is, in a sense, a probing amendment. He has asked me some clear questions about how we would perceive those two cases and I hope that those are clear answers. We do not expect that those will be the sort of issues in which remedial orders would be likely.
On amendment No. 41, if Conservative Members look at schedule 2, they will find that a document must be laid before Parliament containing certain information. It must explain the incompatibility that the remedial order or draft remedial order seeks to remove, and it must state the reasons for proceeding under clause 10 and for making an order in the terms in which it is made.
Therefore, the document is bound to explain why the Government believe that there are compelling reasons for making a remedial order and what those are. The document must be laid before Parliament and will be available for the debate in each House on the motion for affirmative resolution, which will be necessary before a draft remedial order can be made, or in order for an urgent remedial order to continue in existence, so amendment No. 41 is unnecessary.
The approach in amendments Nos. 38 and 39 is more extreme. They would simply remove clause 10 and schedule 2, so that there would be no procedure at all for amending legislation by order to remove an incompatibility with the convention rights. That raises the principle whether it is right, even in tightly drawn circumstances, to amend primary legislation by order.
It would be open to the Government to take no action in response to a declaration of incompatibility—that issue has already been rehearsed during this afternoon's debates—but, where a declaration is made, a Government who are committed to promoting human rights, as we are, will want to do something about the law in question. It is possible for primary legislation to be introduced and passed quickly, but the pressures on the timetable can make it very difficult to find a slot.
The power to make a remedial order is there for cases where there is a very good reason to amend the law following a declaration of incompatibility or a finding by the Strasbourg court, but no suitable legislative vehicle is available. Where a remedial order is made or proposed, we accepted that the procedures for parliamentary scrutiny needed to be strengthened. That is why the requirement to provide a document containing all the relevant information and a statement providing a summary of any representations on an order or draft order was added to schedule 2 in Committee.
We think that we have the balance right here. Clause 10 and schedule 2 enable Parliament to fulfil its responsibilities and ensure that onerous powers are not given to the Government. Our proposals safeguard parliamentary procedures and sovereignty, ensure proper supervision of our laws and ensure that we can begin to get the ability both to enforce human rights law and to create a human rights culture. They also ensure that we can do it in the context of not having to worry that, if something is decided by the Strasbourg court or by our courts that creates an incompatibility, we do not have a mechanism to deal with it in the quick and efficient way that may be necessary.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said, and, to some extent, I think that he has sought to meet the criticisms that we have made. The only pity is that the logical outcome of his argument is that he should accept our demand that clause 10 and schedule 2 be dropped from the Bill.
I have done my best to listen very carefully—I notice the Minister frowning at those strong words—but I want to focus on the portion of his speech where he sought

to describe the sort of case where normal parliamentary procedure would be ridden over and where we would go to the remedial order procedure.
The thing about the remedial order procedure—this is the frightening thing and why it is worrying that the Chamber is not fuller—is that it creates a parallel system to Parliament that does not fully engage Parliament. Schedule 2 sets up a system whereby the Government put out their ideas, consult for 60 days, come to Parliament, say what they are going to do as a result of their consultation, and then ram their provisions straight through Parliament.
6.45 pm
If we are going to have that extra parliamentary procedure, which to some extent mirrors our normal parliamentary procedures, why do we not stick with the parliamentary procedures themselves? That has not been properly explained by the Minister or the Home Secretary. This is simply put forward as some sort of reason for hastening things on. It is not good enough.
If the Government are going to wait for 60 days while they consult, the immediate urgency is removed. If in rare cases—I think that it is generally agreed that these cases would be rare—they have to use this fast-track procedure, they need to get on quickly. They are not going to be able to get on much more quickly than if they come to the House.
I have been in the House for nearly 20 years. Time and again, the Opposition have accepted sensible remedial legislation fairly rapidly by consensus. It is rare that sensible and uncontroversial amendments to the law—as a result, for example, of a respected ruling by an international body such as the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg—are made the opportunity for parliamentary hay-making and obstruction. Therefore, to create a new and parallel system that is far less effective than the proper systems of Parliament is wrong in principle.
The Minister sought to find an example where this rapid procedure is needed. I may have missed something that he said, and I hope that he will remind me if I have, but the only example that I thought I heard him mention was the need to amend codes of practice under PACE. Did the Minister mention another example?

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The other example was some basis on which suspects may be held.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Both those examples fall by the wayside, for this reason. As I understand it, and I do not have the legislation at my fingertips, the amendment of codes of practice under PACE can be done by statutory instrument in any event, so that is not a good example to bring forward in answer to the criticism and our suggestions that clause 10 and schedule 2 be removed from the Bill. It is not an answer.
I can see that, if there were some serious criticism of our procedures in relation to the liberty of an individual, there is a need to move with speed, but the answer that the Minister has given in this debate sits ill with the answers that the Home Secretary was giving in our earlier debate about the need for Government, or a public authority, to have an appeal to Strasbourg.
There, I was seeking to set a tight timetable of about 60 days for Government, in which Government, having been criticised and condemned on the ground that our law is


incompatible by our own courts—by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords—should say whether they accepted the criticism and what they proposed to do about it. I suggested that, if the Government did not accept the ruling of incompatibility, they should say so, so that the citizen concerned could take the case to Strasbourg, which would, in any event, undoubtedly take at least another year to achieve. Nevertheless, the need for speed is offered as a reason for justifying an alleged fast-track procedure.
I think that Ministers now accept in principle the Opposition's criticisms of the proposed procedure, although they did not accept them before. The Under-Secretary has rightly said—I was grateful to hear it—that there has to be a very good and compelling reason indeed for the Government, or any future Government, to attempt to use the fast-track procedure. Such occasions will therefore be rare and deal only with exceptional circumstances. The procedure will not be used regularly or apply to codes of practice—which, regardless, can be amended by statutory instrument. If there is a very good and powerful reason, affecting the liberty of the subject, I do not foresee Conservative Members, other Opposition Members or the Labour Members, as and when they come to be in opposition, standing in the way of such rapid amendment.
I do not believe that the Government have made their case for the fast-track procedure. However, I give them credit for backtracking about as far as they reasonably can, having already set out on this course. None the less, the course is wrong. The Opposition must criticise it as wrong, and make it perfectly clear that such a provision should not be enacted.
I am sorry to have to pitch in that criticism with our other criticisms of the Government trying to ride roughshod over Parliament. I hope that, by so doing, I will not be accused of hyperbole—although I may get the occasional rise of an eyebrow from a Labour Member. However, the Government are attempting to ride roughshod over Parliament. That is being demonstrated by the Jenkins commission, which is rigged in both its composition and its terms of reference. [Interruption.] Yes, it is.
I see the Secretary of State for Scotland spitting and saying "rigged?" The fact is that the Jenkins commission was given terms of reference to examine only one side of a very important picture. The three people on the commission, highly distinguished though they are, were all picked and chosen because of their known views on the subject. The Secretary of State for Scotland may wriggle and wave his hand and seek to rise to the occasion—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We are not debating the Jenkins commission.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was making the point—I am entitled to make this point—that the fast-track procedure is an attempt to ride over the rights of the citizen to be represented in the proper making of legislation by their representatives in Parliament. The fast-track procedure is of a piece with other constitutional changes proposed by the Government—I have mentioned Jenkins, and I mention proposals to abolish the rights of hereditary peers in the House of Lords and to replace them simply by nominated Members.
There is inadequate respect for Parliament, which, sadly, is shown also in this Bill. I put it down to the good sense of the Home Secretary—I am certainly prepared to concede this—that the proposal has now been heavily watered down, as we recommend. However, even something that is watered down can still be wrong in principle. We must therefore oppose the proposal. If Ministers will not accept this group of amendments, we must ask the House to divide on it.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 362.

Division No. 364]
[6.53 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Loughton, Tim


Bercow, John
Luff, Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Blunt, Crispin
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Body, Sir Richard
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Boswell, Tim
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Madel, Sir David


Brady, Graham
Malins, Humfrey


Brazier, Julian
Maples, John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Mates, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Butterfill, John
May, Mrs Theresa


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Nicholls, Patrick



Norman, Archie


Chope, Christopher
Ottaway, Richard


Clappison, James
Page, Richard


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Paice, James


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Paterson, Owen


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Pickles, Eric


Collins, Tim
Prior, David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Randall, John


Cran, James
Robathan, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Duncan, Alan
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Evans, Nigel
Ruffley, David


Fabricant, Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fox, Dr Liam
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gale, Roger
Shepherd, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gibb, Nick
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gray, James
Spring, Richard


Green, Damian
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Greenway, John
Swayne, Desmond


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Syms, Robert


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Tredinnick, David


Horam, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Walter, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Wardle, Charles


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Jenkin, Bernard
Wilkinson, John


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Willetts, David



Wilshire, David


Key, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Woodward, Shaun


Lansley, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Leigh, Edward



Letwin, Oliver
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Stephen Day.


Lidington, David







NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cranston, Ross


Alexander, Douglas
Crausby, David


Allan, Richard
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Allen, Graham
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Cummings, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Ashton, Joe
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Atherton, Ms Candy
Dalyell, Tam


Atkins, Charlotte
Darvill, Keith


Austin, John
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Baker, Norman
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Ballard, Jackie
Davidson, Ian


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bayley, Hugh
Dawson, Hilton


Beard, Nigel
Dean, Mrs Janet


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Denham, John


Begg, Miss Anne
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Dismore, Andrew


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Dobbin, Jim


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Donohoe, Brian H


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dowd, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Benton, Joe
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bermingham, Gerald
Edwards, Huw


Berry, Roger
Efford, Clive


Best, Harold
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Betts, Clive
Ennis, Jeff


Borrow, David
Etherington, Bill


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bradshaw, Ben
Fisher, Mark


Brake, Tom
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Brand, Dr Peter
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Breed, Colin
Flint, Caroline


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Follett, Barbara


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Buck, Ms Karen
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burden, Richard
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fyfe, Maria


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Galloway, George


Cable, Dr Vincent
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Canavan, Dennis
Godman, Dr Norman A


Caplin, Ivor
Godsiff, Roger


Casale, Roger
Goggins, Paul


Caton, Martin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chaytor, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chidgey, David
Gorrie, Donald


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Church, Ms Judith
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clelland, David
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clwyd, Ann
Harris, Dr Evan


Coaker, Vernon
Harvey, Nick


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cohen, Harry
Healey, John


Coleman, Iain
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Colman, Tony
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cooper, Yvette
Hepburn, Stephen


Corbett, Robin
Heppell, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Hesford, Stephen


Cotter, Brian
Hill, Keith


Cousins, Jim
Hoey, Kate





Home Robertson, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hood, Jimmy
Martlew, Eric


Hoon, Geoffrey
Maxton, John


Hope, Phil
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hopkins, Kelvin
Meale, Alan


Howells, Dr Kim
Merron, Gillian


Hoyle, Lindsay
Michael, Alun


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hurst, Alan
Milburn, Alan


Hutton, John
Miller, Andrew


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mitchell, Austin


Illsley, Eric
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Moore, Michael


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Jamieson, David
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Jenkins, Brian
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)



Mudie, George


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Naysmith, Dr Doug



Norris, Dan


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Oaten, Mark


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
O'Hara, Eddie


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Öpik, Lembit


Keeble, Ms Sally
Organ, Mrs Diana


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pearson, Ian


Keetch, Paul
Pendry, Tom


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Perham, Ms Linda


Kemp, Fraser
Pickthall, Colin


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Pike, Peter L


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Plaskitt, James


Khabra, Piara S
Pope, Greg


Kidney, David
Pound, Stephen


Kilfoyle, Peter
Powell, Sir Raymond


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kirkwood, Archy
Prosser, Gwyn


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Purchase, Ken


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Radice, Giles


Laxton, Bob
Rammell, Bill


Lepper, David
Rapson, Syd


Leslie, Christopher
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Levitt, Tom
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rendel, David


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Linton, Martin
Rogers, Allan


Livingstone, Ken
Rooney, Terry


Lock, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Love, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


McAllion, John
Roy, Frank


McCabe, Steve
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McDonnell, John
Ryan, Ms Joan


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Salter, Martin


McIsaac, Shona
Sanders, Adrian


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Savidge, Malcolm


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sawford, Phil


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


McNulty, Tony
Shaw, Jonathan


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McWalter, Tony
Shipley, Ms Debra


McWilliam, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Singh, Marsha


Mallaber, Judy
Skinner, Dennis


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)






Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Truswell, Paul



Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Llew (Baenau Gwent)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Tyler, Paul


Soley, Clive
Vaz, Keith


Southworth, Ms Helen
Vis, Dr Rudi


Spellar, John
Wallace, James


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Walley, Ms Joan


Steinberg, Gerry
Ward, Ms Claire


Stevenson, George
Wareing, Robert N


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Watts, David


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Webb, Steve


Stinchcombe, Paul
Welsh, Andrew


Stoate, Dr Howard
White, Brian


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wicks, Malcolm


Stringer, Graham
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stunell, Andrew
Willis, Phil


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Winnick, David


Swinney, John
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)
Wise, Audrey



Wood, Mike


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Woolas, Phil


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Worthington, Tony


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wray, James


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Tipping, Paddy
Wyatt, Derek


Todd, Mark



Tonge, Dr Jenny
Tellers for the Noes:


Touhig, Don
Mr. David Hanson and Mr. Kevin Hughes.


Trickett, Jon

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 7, line 25, leave out lines 25 and 26.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Clause 13

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 8, line 24, leave out from 'it' to end of line and insert
'shall not make any determination which infringes, or which could lead to the infringement of, that right.'.
We deal once again with the important subject of freedom of thought, conscience and religion. We make no apology for returning to it. It must be dealt with satisfactorily, and we do not believe that matters can be left as they stand. Having said that, we recognise that the Home Secretary has made sincere attempts to overcome the problems created for the Churches and other religious organisations by the incorporation of the European convention. We understand that he has listened to the views of Church leaders and to those of the leaders of other faiths.
Amendment No. 4 would strengthen the protection that the Bill currently offers. It would extend protection of the freedoms to which I adverted, especially the freedom of religion. It was the widely held concern about religious freedom which led to the Lords amending the Bill when it began its progress through the other place. The Lords were anxious to afford a defence to Churches and other religious organisations.
I refer to "Churches and religious organisations", as concerns about religious freedom cut across the boundaries of religious faith. Not only Christian

Churches, but other great faiths and religious organisations are deeply interested in these matters. Churches, religious organisations and faiths all come within the ambit of the Bill, because, for some purposes, they may be considered to be public authorities.
Turning once again to the definition of public authorities which is very much at the heart of our concern, it is not correct to assert—as has been asserted in some quarters—that Churches and religious organisations will come within the ambit of the Bill only when they are standing in the place of the state—for example, when they are providing education in Church schools. Although they will be deemed to be public authorities when they are standing in the place of the state, there may be other circumstances in which they will be public authorities for the purpose of the Bill.
Like any other person or body, Churches, religious organisations and faiths and the charities associated with them will be public authorities within the terms of the Bill when they carry out functions of a public nature. Ultimately, the courts will determine when they are or are not carrying out functions of a public nature. It follows that, when Churches and religious organisations are deemed to be public authorities, they will risk legal challenge from any person who asserts that they have breached a convention right.
It has come about in a strange way that a Bill which has been put forward as upholding human rights and promoting a human rights culture contains the seeds of a threat to the freedom of religious organisations and Churches to follow their own beliefs and order their own affairs—something that they cherish. It applies across the board.
The Secretary of State for Scotland is on the Government Front Bench. He will be concerned about the position of the Church of Scotland, and he may well wish to say more about that this evening.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): indicated assent.

Mr. Clappison: I certainly bow in deference to the Secretary of State for Scotland in his knowledge of the Church of Scotland. I enjoyed the resumé of its history that he imparted to the House when we last discussed the Bill, particularly when he referred to the time during the late 19th century when one third of the ministers departed their livings and took their elders out into the wilderness—a feeling that we understand. I also enjoyed the next part of his speech when he said that that was followed by a period in which there was a great upsurge of enthusiasm among the congregations, and a great growth in the membership of the Church of Scotland.
Like all the other Churches in the United Kingdom, the Church of Scotland comes within the ambit of the European convention and is under threat in the way in which I have described. How great is that threat? We simply do not know. To be fair, in the past, the European Court of Human Rights has often been conservative in that respect, but there is no guarantee for the future and for what will follow incorporation of the European convention.
People who are well placed to know, such as Lord Alton and the Bishop of Ripon, are afraid of groups who, they believe, will be only too happy to take religious


organisations to court to prove a point. Even if, ultimately, they are not successful, vexatious litigants can be a drain on those against whom they bring litigation. They could be a drain on the Churches in terms of cost and effort. The Home Secretary conceded that members of the congregations and Churches do not want to see their resources going into defending legal actions.

Mr. Straw: I did concede that point when the matter was debated in the House in May, and it was partly for that reason, although it was a subsidiary reason, that I thought it extremely important to introduce amendments to the Bill which sought to address the substantive concerns of the Churches and to block their being at risk from vexatious litigants.

Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that intervention. As I said earlier, I accept that he has been entirely sincere and done his best in difficult circumstances to give the Churches protection. I now turn to why the amendments that replace those made in another place are inadequate and do not fulfil the objective that the Home Secretary has just described of giving the Churches protection.
The problem is that the protection in the Bill is simply not strong enough; it is probably the weakest protection that the Government could have chosen. The Home Secretary's amendments simply require a court to pay particular regard to the importance of rights under article 9—freedom of thought, conscience and religion. A court may well consider that it has paid particular regard to the importance of those freedoms under article 9 and then find that, none the less, certain religious organisations are in breach of the convention. The Home Secretary may say that the provision affords religious organisations a defence, but it will not stop any of the challenges that they fear. He cannot reasonably assert that it amounts to a defence. It is merely a request or a requirement that a court pay particular regard to those freedoms. In itself, it does not amount to a defence.
Amendment No. 4 would be an improvement, as it would afford such a defence. Under the terms of the amendment, a court cannot make any determination that infringes the freedom of religion or any other article 9 rights. It is a stronger and altogether more appropriate form of protection than that which is presently in the Bill. Even at this late stage, we invite the Home Secretary to give it serious consideration and to look carefully at what we believe is the stronger protection that it offers our Churches, faiths and religious organisations.
If the Home Secretary is not prepared to accept the amendment, will he give us a careful explanation of his reasons, as we think that it is appropriate and we cannot see any reason why the Government should not give Churches and religious organisations stronger protection? There are precedents elsewhere in Europe for the freedom of religion to be given such protection, so we see no reason why similar circumstances could not prevail here. Religious freedom is one of our most cherished causes and it needs and deserves stronger protection from the possible threat that may arise under the incorporation of the European convention than is presently provided in the Bill.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) for the manner in which he

made his speech. I shall seek to reply in a like manner and to explain as carefully as I can why, with the best will in the world, we cannot accept the amendment.
The matter was debated at considerable length on 20 May, when I spoke for almost 40 minutes. Let me reassure the Whips that I do not intend to do so this evening. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take as read some of the arguments that I made on that occasion.
We never had the least intention of bringing forward a Bill that threatened religious freedom. I entirely subscribe to the sentiments that the hon. Member for Hertsmere expressed a moment ago. We did not believe that the Bill as originally drafted would have threatened religious freedom. However, concerns were expressed in the other place and here on the subject.
Contrary to the admonition of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) that the Government are showing contempt for Parliament, I hope that hon. Members will acknowledge that none of us on the Treasury Bench has come to the debates with a "not invented here" attitude towards amendments from the Opposition or from the other place. I live in hope that there may be a broad consensus behind the Bill, so I thought it very important not to insist that the Bill as originally drafted represented the last word and the best judgment, but to take action on any serious concerns raised about the drafting. We did that for the Churches.
For reasons that I explained at considerable length, we were not able to accept the amendments passed in the other place earlier in the year. We came forward with a new clause, which now stands as clause 13 on page 8. It says:
If a court's determination of any question arising under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation (itself or its members collectively) of the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere made a point about the relative strength of the clause. Similarly worded clauses often say that a court "may" have regard to a particular factor. We have gone as far as we can to make the provision as strong as possible, saying not that the court may have regard, but that
it must have particular regard to the importance of that right.
We believe that that is a strong provision.
The amendment would replace those words with an alternative provision that would mean that, when such an issue arose, the court would not be able to make a determination that might infringe the article 9 right. As the hon. Gentleman has explained, the intention of the amendment is to protect the article 9 rights of religious organisations, even if other parties to the proceedings are asserting different and competing convention rights, such as the right to respect for private and family life under article 8 or the right to freedom of expression under article 10.
The hon. Gentleman has asked me to explain why we are not willing to accept the amendment. If it had the effect that I have described—we believe that it would, because of how the words are used—it would be contrary to the convention.

Mr. Clappison: Before the Home Secretary comes to the next stage of his argument, does he accept that, under


the Bill, it will be possible for a Church or religious organisation to be found in breach of the convention, but that the amendment would prevent that by giving them a guaranteed defence?

Mr. Straw: The answer is yes. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to place the Churches beyond the convention, so that, even if they were exercising the functions of a public authority and were plainly in breach of the convention, they could not be found to be in breach. If we accepted the amendment, the Act would be in breach of the convention. Instead of matters being resolved here, they would go off to Strasbourg, and the Court would eventually declare that part of the Act in breach of the convention. I understand the purpose behind the amendment, but it would be self-defeating.
The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion guaranteed by article 9.1 is not absolute. It is important to make that clear. Under article 9.2, it may be subject to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of various factors, including the protection of rights and freedoms of others. In that respect, article 9 is similar to articles 8, 10 and 11. The court must weigh the competing interests and come to a decision. It is not open to a court to give automatic priority in all cases to one convention right over another.
Having said that, I want to reassure the Opposition on two points. The hon. Gentleman said that a Church will act as a public authority not just when standing in place of the state, but when it carries out functions of a public nature. That is not correct. To the extent that the second part of what he said was accurate, he was simply tautologically making the same point as the first. Churches will be subject to the Act only when standing in the stead of the state and exercising functions of a public nature. I explained that at considerable length at column 1015 of the Official Report of 20 May. I should also like to reassure the hon. Gentleman on Strasbourg jurisprudence.

Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for generously giving way for a second time. I appreciate that he is trying to give reassurance, but there is nothing in the Bill to say that Churches are public authorities only when they are standing in the place of the state. They are subject to the same definition in clause 6 as everybody else. They are public authorities when they are carrying out functions of a public nature. The Bill says nothing about Churches being public authorities only when they are standing in the place of the state. Whenever they carry out functions of a public nature, they will be public authorities.

Mr. Straw: The convention exists to protect individuals from abuse by the state or by people standing in the stead of the state. That is the point of the convention. It is not there to deal with the abuse of rights by bodies acting in a private capacity. That is spelt out in the relevant clause. For the avoidance of doubt, I shall repeat what I said on 20 May about how we think that the Bill will operate in relation to Churches:
Much of what the Churches do is, in the legal context and in the context of the European convention on human rights, essentially private in nature … For example, the regulation of divine worship,

the administration of the sacrament, admission to Church membership or to the priesthood and decisions of parochial church councils about the running of the parish church are, in our judgment, all private matters.
In such matters, Churches will not be public authorities; the requirement to comply with convention rights will not bite on them. We do not believe that, for example, the Church of England, the Church of Scotland or the Roman Catholic Church, as bodies, would be public authorities under the Bill. I was asked to clarify that by many people, not least the Cardinal Archbishop.
On the occasions when Churches stand in place of the state, convention rights are relevant to what they do. The two most obvious examples relate to marriages and to the provision of education in Church schools."— [Official Report, 20 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 1015.]
Having dealt with that, I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman on his second point. There is good Strasbourg case law to suggest that, in practice, article 9 rights are afforded considerable protection from attack. I should like to quote from page 359 of the text book "Law of the European Convention on Human Rights" by Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick:
Where there is a conflict between protected rights, the judgment of the Court in Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria speaks in favour of the strong regard to be had for religious beliefs (and therefore, Article 9 rights) in deciding priority between the competing rights. In that case, the state had interfered with the applicants' Article 10 right to freedom of expression by seizing and ordering forfeit a film found likely to offend the religious feelings of the Catholics who constituted the large majority of people in the region where the applicant proposed to show it. The Court upheld the interferences with the applicant's right as being necessary for the protection of `the [religious] rights and freedoms of others.' In confirming that the interference had a legitimate aim, the Court said: '… the manner in which religious beliefs and doctrines are opposed or denied is a matter which may engage the responsibility of the state, notably its responsibility to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the right guaranteed under Article 9 to the holders of those beliefs and doctrines'".
The passage went on:
—in the context of religious opinions and beliefs—may legitimately be included an obligation [on individuals] to avoid as far as possible expressions which are gratuitously offensive to others".
The authors conclude:
This is a strong affirmation of the power and even the duty of states to protect manifestations of religious belief.
7.30 pm 
The hon. Member for Hertsmere invited us to speculate on what might happen if the Court in Strasbourg or the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords had a rush of blood to the head and, say, became evangelical atheists. I do not think that that is going to happen. Who knows what would happen if courts of the land or the European Courts went mad? All sorts of things could happen.
On the whole, the best guide to the future—indeed, in many ways the only guide—is the past. The Court's record provides substantial reassurance. So should the history of Europe, which was written in blood until 1945. Much of that blood was spilt in the alleged cause of religious belief and religious conflict. Many of the states of Europe which now form the core of the European Union and the Council of Europe have had peacefully to accommodate conflict between Churches—between the Lutheran Church and the Catholic Church in Germany and the Catholic and other Protestant Churches in other states—just as we have in this country, and just as we at


long last are seeking to do in the north of Ireland. Against that background, our courts and the European Court in Strasbourg have been and will continue to be alive to the need to respect the exercise of religious freedom. They have clearly done so in the jurisprudence that has been laid down in Strasbourg.
The provisions of clause 13, which we introduced in May, require the Court to have particular regard to the importance of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. That is as far—honestly—as we think that we can go consistent with the convention. We believe that that has also been recognised by the Churches.
I do not argue with the hon. Member for Hertsmere for seeking to revisit the issue, although the debate on the subject in Committee on 20 May followed the most intense period of discussion that I have had with representatives of the Churches. I was not able to meet their every request, but I can give a flavour of their response by quoting, as I did in Committee, from a letter that I received from Cardinal Archbishop Basil Hume, which said:
I have sought the best legal advice and my initial assessment is that the amendment in the form tabled by the Government"—
which now appears in the Bill as clause 13—
may be the best that can be reasonably be achieved to reinforce the protection given by the Convention to the churches and other faiths under Article 9.
I was very grateful to the cardinal archbishop for saying that. I happen to believe that the legal advice that he received is accurate.
Since that debate—this should provide a further reassurance for the hon. Member for Hertsmere—we have received hardly any representations from religious organisations about the potential impact of the Bill on them. We received many beforehand. I understood them, took them on board and went as far as we could with them. It is interesting that, although they have since had five months fully to consider the matter, we have not received representations from them. If they thought that clause 13 was insufficient or capable of improvement, I am sure that they would have told us so.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the House will accept the reasons why we cannot agree to the amendment and that Opposition Members will not press it to a vote.

Mr. James Wallace: Anyone who listened to the Home Secretary would accept that he has obviously given the matter considerable thought and has gone a long way to meet the many concerns expressed in Committee. He made the very telling point that there is a danger of going too far, thereby threatening the entire protection that is sought.
I shall briefly comment on matters regarding the Church of Scotland, to which the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) alluded when he moved the amendment. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland is present. He will know from the representations that he has seen that the matter has been the subject of considerable discussion between the Government and the Church of Scotland over recent months. Although I am not sure whether it is relevant, I declare an interest as an elder of the Church of Scotland.
As the Secretary of State for Scotland suggested in the history of the subject that he described in Committee, the Church of Scotland Act 1921 is constitutionally

important. The Act was a settlement, agreed between Parliament and the Church of Scotland, that guaranteed the Church separate and independent jurisdiction in matters spiritual and paved the way for the union of the Church of Scotland and the Free Church in 1929. I would not want to detain the House, but it would be helpful if the Secretary of State confirmed that, when he wrote to the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on 13 May, he said:
I hope it goes without saying that I, and the government, would not wish the Bill to be a vehicle for undermining the position of the churches. That is certainly not the government's intention. Nor do we believe that it will be the effect of the Bill".
Although I am sure that that sums up the Government's position, it would be helpful if the Secretary of State confirmed it in the context of the Church of Scotland. It is a matter of considerable importance and concern to the Church, which would certainly wish to be reassured that the Government are satisfied that the Bill is consistent with provisions of the 1921 Act and does not conflict with the Church's independent spiritual government and jurisdiction as recognised by that Act since 1921.

Mr. Dewar: I was touched that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) remembered what I said on the previous occasion on which we debated this matter. Having a suspicious mind, however, I thought that he had read my remarks recently in order to pad out his own. Being a man of not infinite but occasional charity, I am prepared to take the more generous view of my own efforts on that occasion.
There is no doubt that this is a matter of importance. If I remember rightly, I said on 20 May that I was in a slightly awkward situation because I was being asked to deal with a wide range of points that were put to me on matters furth of the affairs of the Church of Scotland and felt at something of a disadvantage. I remember rather vaguely, for instance, some interesting exchanges about the employment policy of the Dutch Salvation Army occupying the attention of the Committee for some time.
On this occasion, I am not in the same difficulty, because the only contribution from outwith the respective Front Benches has been that of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who has taken a very close interest in these matters and who I know has—I do not know whether this is the right way of putting it—a long connection with the Church of Scotland, which he declared a few minutes ago.
The issue requires close attention; it has been an anxious matter. As there have been for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, so there have been many discussions on the topic between myself, my Department and legal representatives in the form of the Lord Advocate and the procurator to the General Assembly. I pay tribute to the care with which the Church of Scotland has advanced its case. I do so in the knowledge that the clerk to the General Assembly is present. The discussion has been civilised, but the fact that it has a civilised face does not undermine or hide the fact that it was taken seriously by those on both sides of the argument.
I do not know whether many of my colleagues in the House have taken the trouble to look at the Church of Scotland Act 1921; perhaps it is unfair to expect them to have done so. As I have said before, that Act must be almost unique in terms of House of Commons


draftsmanship, certainly in this century. It is a splendid piece of prose, full of resounding cadences. Beneath those cadences, however, it is an attempt to define and offer protection to some significant and important principles. My first message is that we take those principles seriously.
I am conscious of the fact that we are dealing with a United Kingdom Bill, and that the amendment is of general application. None the less, it is important that I take the opportunity to make a statement about the position of the Church of Scotland under the Bill, and especially about the relationship between the provisions of the Bill and the Church of Scotland Act.
As I have already explained, concerns have been expressed during the passage of the Bill, both in the other place and in our Committee debate in May, that it may intrude unacceptably on the Church of Scotland's independent jurisdiction in spiritual matters. That was recognised in the 1921 Act, and relates to all matters of doctrine, worship, government and discipline in the Church.
My colleagues and I discussed those concerns fully with the then moderator and his colleagues within the Church. What I say today is not new, and I shall not pretend that it is, but I hope that it will be a clear statement of the Government's policy and intentions.
I set out in Committee the historical background to the position of the Church of Scotland in our national life, and the events that led to the Church of Scotland Act 1921, which recognised the independent jurisdiction of the Church of Scotland in spiritual matters. We do not want to do anything to disturb that important settlement.
Of course, that separation does not exempt the Church institutions from the operation of the law in general. In my experience, that fact has been accepted in all the conversations about the legislation. The Church has always recognised that, if by mischance it did something that constituted a criminal offence, it would not be immune from prosecution simply because it asserted that it was operating in a purely spiritual matter.
In addition, as we all know, the Church operates in non-spiritual areas—when it provides much-valued social work services, for example, and when it acts as an employer. In such matters, it is subject to the law, as is any other body in the field; there is no dispute about that.
The civil courts in Scotland have held that they have jurisdiction to inquire whether a question before them falls within the definition of spiritual matters, but not to determine the spiritual matter itself. The Government do not intend to disturb that position.
The general effect of the Bill is to bring rights home, and to make existing convention rights enforceable against public authorities directly in the courts of this country. We are making it unlawful for public authorities to act in a way incompatible with the convention rights. We have no intention of interfering with the religious freedom of any Church, and I emphasise strongly the fact that the Bill does not do so. We are not introducing any new civil rights beyond those in the European convention on human rights, which individuals can already found upon in Strasbourg; indeed, they have been able to do so for many years.
In our view, the courts of the Church of Scotland are not courts for the purposes of the Bill. That is in line with the separation of Church and state embodied in the 1921 Act. The Church has suggested that the Church or its courts might, in some circumstances, be held to be public authorities in the terms of the Bill when acting in spiritual matters. However, in all our discussions with the Church, neither party has been able to come up with a specific example of how that possibility might arise. There has been no challenge in Strasbourg to the actions of the Church in the more than 40 years since we ratified the European convention. In addition, jurisprudence to date, both domestically and at Strasbourg, suggests that the civil courts are reluctant to become involved in the spiritual affairs of any Church. The Home Secretary advanced some important evidence to that effect a few minutes ago.
7.45 pm 
Only last month, the 1921 Act was successfully invoked by the Church of Scotland in proceedings before an industrial tribunal. The role of the civil courts will be to determine whether the Church was acting as a public authority, and if so whether any convention right had been breached, and what is the minimum intervention necessary to redress that breach. That simply reflects what the court in Strasbourg has always done in relation to cases brought against the United Kingdom.
In implementing our policy of bringing rights home, we would expect no less; equally, we would expect no more. Requiring the Church to carry out its functions in a way that respects convention rights, and providing a remedy in the civil courts if that is not done, does not affect the Church's independent jurisdiction in spiritual matters under the 1921 Act.
We have already explained both here and in the other place why we have been unable to accept the various amendments proposed that would have exempted the Church of Scotland, when acting in spiritual matters, from the provisions of the Bill. Briefly, we have not been willing to concede a specific exemption for one Church; nor do we think that an exemption for Churches in general would be justified.
The Church of Scotland is the only religious body in the United Kingdom that benefits from a statute guaranteeing its independence in spiritual matters, but there are many different religious groups in our society, all of which feel passionately about the preservation of their independence.
It is not the intention of the Bill to force any religious group to do things that might be inconsistent with its principles and conscience. The amendment that we tabled in Committee applies to all Churches and faiths, and reassures them that the domestic courts will have particular regard to their rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion under article IX. We could not treat the spiritual independence of the Church of Scotland any differently.
I hope that I have been able to make it clear that the Government do not think that the Bill will undermine the position of the Church of Scotland under the 1921 Act. It is certainly not our intention that that Act should be undermined. We do not therefore think it necessary to make an explicit reference in the Bill, beyond the amendment that we have already made to recognise the position of Churches generally.
I hope that I have also explained why it is neither necessary nor desirable to make the point explicit in the Bill. The Church sought reassurances from us following both its own extensive internal debate, and a motion passed at the general assembly in May. I emphasise the fact that, throughout all our discussions with the Church, it has unfailingly welcomed the Government's intentions behind the Bill and reaffirmed its commitment to convention rights.
I have said to the Church that, if in practice the provisions of the Bill produce any real difficulties in connection with the 1921 Act, we shall be prepared to consider the matter, but that we shall not alter the Bill as it stands to deal with a possibility that we believe to be no more than hypothetical.
I hope that those words are of some help in clarifying our intention and our position. As for the specific points made by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland, I hope that what I have said reinforces, and states at rather greater length, what I wrote in the letter that he quoted.

Mr. Wallace: I thank the Secretary of State for that statement and the clarification that he has given, which I think will be widely held to be helpful.

Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am looking now at the schedule to the 1921 Act, which says:
This Church is in historical continuity with the Church of Scotland which was reformed in 1560, whose liberties were ratified in 1592, and for whose security provision was made in the Treaty of Union of 1707.
It would be somewhat brazen and presumptuous, even by my standards, if I were to put at risk such a fine pedigree so well established by custom and long usage. On those good intentions, I rest my case.

Mr. Clappison: This has been a worthwhile debate, in the sense that it has given us an opportunity to raise our concerns about religious freedom. Despite the words of the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland, we remain unconvinced that the Bill as it stands sufficiently affords protection for religious freedom.
I appreciate that the Home Secretary was choosing his words with care and that he has made considerable effort in that regard. I am not so sure about the reference to evangelical atheists. I shall have to think about that later—possibly with the aid of a dictionary. We think that the amendment would have afforded stronger protection.
We accept that the Churches want to promote human rights, but I am sure that they share our anxieties that the Bill, as it stands, would have the unintended consequence of creating challenges and threats to religious freedom that do not exist at present. We are seeking not to take the Churches outside the Bill or the ambit of the human rights framework, but merely to provide Churches, religious organisations and faiths with a defence. We could have tried to take the Churches out of the Bill by tabling an amendment proposing that they were not to be public authorities for the purpose of the Bill. There are those in some Churches and faiths who would have preferred that course.
Churches and religious groups will be within the framework of the Bill. They could be public authorities, and they could rely upon the provisions of the Bill

themselves to bring an action against another public authority which was in breach in some circumstances. The Churches, if regarded as public authorities, could have an action brought against them by another person or body, alleging that they were in breach. If the amendment were passed, the Churches—by relying on their freedom of thought, conscience or religion—would be afforded a defence. In the Bill as it stands, there is no such defence.
I heard what the Home Secretary said about Strasbourg, but it is interesting that, if the Churches were found to be in breach as public authorities in this country, they would have no right of appeal to Strasbourg as public authorities. I think that I made it clear in my opening remarks that Strasbourg's jurisprudence had been conservative in the past, but that is no guarantee for the future. The Secretary of State for Scotland's reference to the Dutch Salvation Army reminded me of the case brought against that organisation by a group under the auspices of human rights. The case was ultimately defended by the Dutch Salvation Army, but it was an expensive exercise.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman says that what I said was no guarantee for the future. Since we are talking about matters spiritual, I should say that there are no guarantees about the future that any of us can give, except that there will come a moment when we are no longer here. According to our point of view, we then may or may not be somewhere else. That is the only certainty there is about life—in the absolute sense. In the relative sense in which we must deal day by day, week by week and year by year, a considerable guarantee about the future conduct of the courts can be found in clause 2, which imports into English and Scots law the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which gives a high emphasis to the protection of article 9 rights.

Mr. Clappison: That is so, but there may be cases that are not covered by that jurisprudence. Even so, in applying that jurisprudence, it may still be the case in some circumstances that the Churches or religious organisations could be found to be in breach. The Home Secretary cannot gainsay that, under the amendment, Churches relying upon an article 9 right could not be found to be in breach. No matter how we foresee the future, that is certainly a much more secure defence than the defence being provided by the Government—if, indeed, it is a defence at all.
We join the Home Secretary in expressing the hope that there will not be unintended consequences from the Bill in the shape of challenges to our Churches and great faiths, and we hope that they will not find themselves brought before the courts by litigants—perhaps the vexatious litigants which some have foreseen—at great expense to themselves. We hope that that will not occur.
We cannot express that hope with as much confidence as we would like. We cherish our religious freedoms, and we would have preferred to give them the superior defence afforded by the amendment—an altogether stronger defence. However, this has not been a contentious or partisan debate, and it is in the spirit of expressing that hope—although without much confidence—that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19

STATEMENTS OF COMPATIBILITY

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 11, line 33, after `compatibility)', insert
'which statement must be accompanied by a report setting out any issues which the Minister considers to be relevant to the question of the compatibility of the Bill with the Convention's rights and giving the Minister's reasons for stating that the Bill is compatible'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 11, line 36, after 'Bill', insert
'which statement must be accompanied by a report setting out

(i) any issues which the Minister considers to be relevant to the question of the compatibility of the Bill with the Convention's rights;
(ii) the reasons why the Minister is unable to make a statement of compatibility; and
(iii) the reasons why the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill notwithstanding the Minister's inability to make a statement of compatibility.'.

No. 3, in page 11, leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert—
'(2) A statement and report made under subsection (1)(a) must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.
(3) A statement under subsection (1)(b) must be an oral statement given to both Houses of Parliament, and a report under subsection (1)(b) must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.'.

Mr. Clappison: We now come to the question of statements of compatibility. As matters stand, a Minister must, before Second Reading of any Bill, make a statement to the effect that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European convention, or state that, although the Minister is unable to make that statement, the Government wish the House to proceed with the Bill. We will be interested to hear from the Government examples of when they think the latter might apply.
We believe that the proposal puts more emphasis on presentation than substance—something with which we are not unfamiliar under this Government. If Ministers are to pronounce in this way and make statements of compatibility, it would surely be more meaningful for them to give their reasons. We wonder just how many Ministers will state that they are unable to make a statement of compatibility before Second Reading. How many will come to the House and say, "This is a bit dodgy, but we want you to go ahead anyway"?
We suspect that Ministers will use the measure as a rubber stamp to present their Bills as complying with the European convention, irrespective of the reasons for doing so and without an informed debate on the subject. We think that it would say rather more if Ministers were prepared to give their reasons. We are not heartened by the attitude taken by the Government so far when they have had considered opinions given to them about some of their legislation.
The Minister will be aware that certain provisions in the Crime and Disorder Bill were subject to critical questioning by a group of distinguished academics as to whether those provisions would comply with the European convention on human rights. Since then, there has been a steady stream of legal and academic

opinion about some of the measures that the Government have proposed and whether they comply with the Government's own incorporation of the European convention.
A few days ago, the chairman of the Bar, Heather Hallett QC, said that reforms in the pipeline from the Government could be challenged under the new Human Rights Bill, soon to reach the statute book. She said:
It would be a dreadful irony if the very first challenge in the courts was to legislation passed in the same session by the same Parliament … If the reports of some of the proposals emanating from the Home Office are accurate, that is exactly what will happen.
The Government will legislate with one hand, but will be challenged under that very legislation on the other. That is not a desirable state of affairs, and a rubber-stamp statement of compatibility—as appears in the Bill—is not much of a guarantee against it. We cannot see why Ministers should not be prepared to give their reasons so as to make this measure more than a rubber stamp, and we look forward with interest to the Minister's explanation of why the Government are not prepared to be open and give their reasons.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The three amendments relate to statements of compatibility, or incompatibility, made under clause 19. The clause is a demonstration of the Government's commitment to human rights. It is one which we need not have included in the Bill, but we have chosen to include it because of the importance we attach to these rights. The added responsibilities placed on a Minister are justified on that basis.
By requiring a Minister in charge of a Bill to give a statement on its compatibility, we are underlining our commitment to pre-legislative scrutiny of all new policy measures. Also, where the Minister states that he is unable to make a positive statement about the Bill's compatibility, that will be an early signal to Parliament that the possible human rights implications of the Bill will need to be given careful consideration by the House—especially, no doubt, in Committee.
The amendments add to the requirements placed on Ministers by clause 19. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would require a statement on the compatibility or otherwise of a Bill to be accompanied by a report setting out issues relevant to the Bill's compatibility with the convention rights and, where the Government wanted Parliament to proceed with a Bill for which a Minister could not make a statement of compatibility, reasons why they nevertheless wished the House to consider it.
Amendment No. 3 would provide that an oral rather than a written statement, as the Bill currently provides for, be made in respect of a Bill for which a statement of compatibility could not be given.
I can understand why the amendments have been tabled, but in many ways it is a matter of judgment as to how the House will proceed. Our view is that the amendments are unnecessary, because the House provides for the examination of such issues in its procedures in any event. The amendments would almost create an artificial mechanism to do what the House already does. A statement as provided for by the Bill as it stands will be sufficient to achieve the important aims that both we and, in many ways, Opposition Members want clause 19 to deliver. That would flag up the issue to the House, which


in the normal course of events would be able to look into the reasoning behind the statement of compatibility. Inevitably, that will be an issue during the passage of a Bill.
A debate would provide the best forum in which the Government's thinking could be fully explained. I cannot imagine how the mere giving of such a statement could enhance the debate that would normally take place on Second Reading or in Committee, which would usually elicit the required answers.
8 pm 
In such circumstances, a written report would not provide much added value. In some cases, a requirement to provide such a full report might also be odd—for example when the terms of a Bill meant that there was no connection with the convention and no convention rights were affected. Then it would merely be a pointless exercise.
Similarly, the requirement for a Minister to make an oral statement when he or she cannot make a statement of compatibility, as imposed by amendment No. 3, is not necessary or appropriate. Acts of Parliament do not usually regulate what a Minister will or will not say in the Chamber. A written statement would be readily available to whoever wanted to read it. As I said, anything in that statement and any other aspect of the human rights implications of a Bill could be debated under the normal proceedings of the House.
What might be of assistance would be any report made on the Bill, for example, by a human rights Committee of the House, if it decided to set one up. In due course, that might certainly be a way of informing the debate, whether in Committee or elsewhere, and looking into the detail of why such a statement was made by the Government. Obviously, such a Committee of the House could discuss the detail.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has tabled the amendments for legitimate and proper reasons, in the sense that he wants to be sure that the House has the opportunity to discuss the issues fully, but his concerns are covered by the procedures of the House.
The hon. Gentleman asked for some examples of when the Government might want to proceed with a Bill that was not compatible with the convention. One example would be if we were legislating on the length of time for which the Secretary of State might authorise the detention of terrorist suspects under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts. The Strasbourg Court found our court in breach of article 5 of the convention some years ago, but we have maintained the arrangements because of the situation in Northern Ireland through a derogation as set out in schedule 3 of the Bill.
We already know that we may want to proceed with certain Bills even though there is some incompatibility. It is difficult to predict all the situations that might arise, as they are exceptional, like the example I gave.
The hon. Gentleman will realise, I think, that it is right that the Government should flag up an issue to the House, which can go into the detail and the reasoning behind the statement of incompatibility through its normal procedures. He will see from my example that we may properly want to proceed with a Bill that is incompatible

with the convention, although that will be rare and exceptional. I hope that, in view of my comments, the Opposition will withdraw their amendment.

Mr. Clappison: Although I listened carefully to the Minister's arguments, I remain afraid that this will be little more than a rubber stamp and a presentational device. The hon. Gentleman and the Government would do well to be aware of the stream of legal and other academic opinion about the consequences for possible future legal action of some of the legislation that they have put before the House. The Opposition certainly do not want such a situation to arise, but we fear that it might.
I am not convinced by what the Minister has said. This is more a matter of presentation than of substance. However, in view of the lateness of the hour, I will not press the matter to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20

ORDERS UNDER THIS ACT

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 11, line 40, after `power' insert
'of a Minister of the Crown'.

No. 15, in page 11, line 42, after 'power' insert
'of the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State'.

No. 16, in page 12, line 1, after 'made' insert
'by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State'.

No. 17, in page 12, line 5, at end insert —
'() The power of a Northern Ireland department to make—

(a)rules under section 2(3)(b) or 7(9)(b); or
(b)an order under section 7(11);

is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979.
() Any rules made under section 2(3)(b) or 7(9)(b) shall be subject to negative resolution; and section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (meaning of "subject to negative resolution") shall apply as if the power to make the rules were conferred by an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
() No order may be made by a Northern Ireland department under section 7(11) unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by, the Northern Ireland Assembly.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Clause 21

INTERPRETATION, ETC

Amendments made: No. 18, in page 12, line 6, at end insert —
'"amend" includes repeal and apply (with or without modifications);'.

No. 19, in page 12, line 17, at end insert —
' "Northern Ireland Minister" includes the First Minister and the deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland;'.

No. 20, in page 12, line 24, leave out lines 24 to 27 and insert—
'(f) Order in Council —

(i) made in exercise of Her Majesty's Royal Prerogative;


(ii) made under section 38(1)(a) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 or the corresponding provision of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; or
(iii) amending an Act of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c);'.

No. 21, in page 12, line 28, leave out from 'made' to `under' in line 30.

No. 22, in page 12, line 30, after 'legislation' insert
'(otherwise than by the National Assembly for Wales, a member of the Scottish Executive, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Northern Ireland department)'. —[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 12, line 34, at end insert—
' "the Sixth Protocol" means the Protocol to the Convention agreed at Strasbourg on 28th April 1983;'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 31, 32, 34 and 35.

Mr. O'Brien: The amendments all concern the death penalty and arise as a result of decisions in Committee and an announcement made earlier in the year. In Committee, amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) were accepted on a free vote. They inserted references to articles 1 and 2 of the sixth protocol into clause 1 of the Bill and inserted some of their text into schedule 1. The sixth protocol provides for the abolition of the death penalty.
However, my hon. Friend's amendments did not define the sixth protocol for the purposes of the Bill, and we are now doing so in amendment No. 23 to clause 21. My hon. Friend also left out a sentence from article 1 of the protocol—inadvertently, I am sure—which is inserted at the correct place in the sentence in schedule 1.
The other three amendments arise from a decision announced by the Minister for the Armed Forces in a statement to the House on 24 July, in columns 1372 to 1386 of Hansard. He announced that the Government intended to abolish the death penalty for military offences in all circumstances, whether in peace or wartime.
Accordingly, amendment No. 31 inserts a new subsection into clause 21, which provides that any liability to the death penalty under the Armed Forces Acts is to be treated as a liability to life imprisonment or some lesser penalty instead. That general statement will be supplemented by detailed amendments to the Armed Forces Acts when the next legislation to consolidate them is introduced. The services were fully involved in the review and consultation took place at all levels, up to and including the chiefs of staff, who believe that the time is right to abolish the death penalty.
Amendment No. 32 provides that the new subsection inserted by amendment No. 31 comes into force when the Bill receives Royal Assent. That is consistent with our intention to honour the decision of the House by proceeding without delay to sign and ratify the sixth protocol.
Amendment No. 34 provides that the new subsection inserted by amendment No. 31 has effect in any place in which the Armed Forces Acts have effect, which is necessary because, unlike the Human Rights Bill, those Acts are not limited in their territorial extent to the United Kingdom. That is consistent with our intention to extend

the ratification of the sixth protocol to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, subject to their agreement. Jersey and the Isle of Man have already agreed and Guernsey will next week debate a recommendation from the Advisory and Finance Committee to do so.
The practical effects of the amendments are such that Parliament will not be able to reintroduce the death penalty, other than for acts committed in time of war or imminent threat of war, unless the United Kingdom denounces the European convention on human rights.
The inclusion of article 2 of the sixth protocol in the Bill shows that we recognise that, in ratifying the protocol, we must ratify the whole protocol rather than any part of it. Leaving article 2 in the Bill does not signify any intention to reintroduce the death penalty for acts in time of war. Parliament could do that whether or not article 2 were in the Bill, but that would be inconsistent with the Government's position as set out in the statement that my right hon. Friend the former Minister for the Armed Forces made in July. The amendments give effect to that new policy.

Mr. David Wilshire: The death penalty is always a matter for a free vote in the House—as, indeed, it was in Committee—but as there is unlikely to be a vote tonight, I want to ensure that my views appear on the record.
I have always believed that capital punishment is not a party political issue—it transcends the partisan quarrels that we have in this place. I have opposed judicial murder all my life, however hideous the crime and however great the desire for punishment, even in times of war. In my 11 years in the House, I have supported every attempt to abolish the death penalty in the armed forces. I want simply to say that I support this attempt tonight.

Mr. John Maples: I shall not oppose the amendments, but I shall ask the Minister some questions. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), I have always voted against the reimposition of the death penalty; I cannot envisage any circumstances in which I would not do so except in the narrow area of military discipline in time of war.
We are talking about very serious offences in wartime, such as assisting the enemy in battlefield conditions; we are not talking about peacetime, when the disciplinary aspects of the matter are not relevant. However, I want to know why we are dealing with the death penalty in the Bill. I know that the matter was discussed in Committee, but it is extraneous—it is not necessary for the incorporation of the convention or for the accession to protocol 6.
I am aware of the statement made by the former Minister for the Armed Forces, but, like my hon. Friends, I thought that the matter would be dealt with in the new military discipline Bill, which we expect to be brought before the House in the parliamentary Session after next. That would have given us the opportunity for an extensive debate about this radical and fundamental step. I do not think that there is any prospect of the death penalty being enforced in peacetime between now and then, so I believe that it would have been better to wait.
The Minister said that the matter had been discussed at all levels up to and including chiefs of staff. I forget his exact words, but I think that he said that they thought that


the time had come to implement the measure. I would appreciate his assurance that they are confident that the ultimate penalty will not be needed in wartime conditions and that they are happy for it to be abolished. If they are happy, I have no further argument except to say that circumstances could change. Are we—the Minister may have answered this—committed for all time to the measure, short of resiling from the treaty under the general provisions of public international law?
I am slightly concerned about the interpretation of article 2 of protocol 6 and whether it applies only to laws that are notified at the time of accession to the protocol. Is the Minister confident that a state that did not have the death penalty in wartime at the time of accession could subsequently give notification that it had enacted it, so registering such a derogation? Article 2 seems to imply that, when a state accedes to the protocol, it can retain the death penalty for wartime military offences. Is the Minister saying, as I think he is, that that applies equally to a subsequent derogation?
8.15 pm 
Can we withdraw from protocol 6 under article 5 without resiling from the whole convention? If I understand what the Minister is saying about article 2, that question is redundant, but if my interpretation is not right, I believe that we could withdraw from the protocol under paragraph 3 of article 5, which states:
Any declaration made under the two preceding paragraphs may … be withdrawn by a notification addressed to the Secretary General.
My concern is that that applies only to those territories that are nominated under paragraph 1 of article 5, not to a withdrawal from the protocol. If so, is it the case that to withdraw from the protocol one would have to withdraw from the whole convention, which, of course, any state has the right to do under public international law?
I should be grateful if the Minister were to give his interpretation, on the advice that he has been given, of article 2 of protocol 6. If the House were, under wartime conditions, to reintroduce the death penalty in military discipline legislation, could such a derogation from the convention be registered with the Secretary General?

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) set out his views on the death penalty, which many of us share. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) asked trenchantly why we were introducing the measure now, in this Bill. He obviously was not present when we discussed the death penalty; the House, not the Government, decided that protocol 6 should be introduced into the Bill. When my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) tabled an amendment on the death penalty, I suggested that the Bill was not the right vehicle for the matter. However, the House in its wisdom took an alternative view, so the Government had to table these amendments.
As I understand it, the Ministry of Defence was consulting on the use of the death penalty in military circumstances; my ministerial colleagues moved to examine the matter as quickly as possible in view of the wish of the House. That is how we arrived at where we are today—the House took the view that the matter was best dealt with in the Bill rather than in military legislation, and it is right and proper that the Government should listen to the views of the House.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the chiefs of staff were satisfied with the way in which we were proceeding. My information is that they are.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about article 2 of protocol 6. The question of derogation does not really arise here, because article 2 does no more than permit a state to have the death penalty in wartime. It is not so much that we are derogating; we would merely inform the powers that be, or make the necessary statement, that we intended to reintroduce it. Obviously, the House would have to make a decision then on its reintroduction into our law. Therefore, in time of war, should we wish to make that decision—I think that we would all hope that it would not be necessary—we would not be handicapped in a way which we would find unsatisfactory.
Given those reassurances, I hope that the House will agree to the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 24, in page 12, line 41, leave out 'or' and insert—
'(ii) made'.

No. 25, in page 12, line 42, at end insert
'or the corresponding provision of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; or

(iii) amending an Act of a kind mentioned in the definition of primary legislation;'.

No. 26, in page 12, line 45, leave out 'Northern Ireland Assembly' and insert
'Assembly established under section 1 of the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973;

(da) Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly;'.

No. 27, in page 13, line 7, leave out 'or (d)' and insert (d) or (da)'.

No. 28, in page 13, line 8, at end insert—
'() order, rules, regulations, scheme, warrant, byelaw or other instrument made by a member of the Scottish Executive, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Northern Ireland department in exercise of prerogative or other executive functions of Her Majesty which are exercisable by such a person on behalf of Her Majesty;'.

No. 29, in page 13, line 8, at end insert—
' "transferred matters" has the same meaning as in the Northern Ireland Act 1998;'.

No. 30, in page 13, line 21, leave out subsection (5).

No. 31, in page 13, line 23, at end insert—
'(6) Any liability under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957 to suffer death for an offence is replaced by a liability to imprisonment for life or any less punishment authorised by those Acts; and those Acts shall accordingly have effect with the necessary modifications.'.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Clause 22

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, APPLICATION AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 32, in page 13, line 25, leave out 'and 20' and insert 20 and 21(6)'.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 13, line 33, leave out 'committed' and insert `taking place'.
This is a drafting amendment to clause 22(4). At present it provides that clause 7(1)(b) applies to proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public


authority whenever the act in question took place, but that otherwise clause 7(1)(b) does not apply to an act committed before clause 7 comes into force. Amendment No. 33 replaces "committed" by "taking place" so as to be consistent with the earlier reference.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 34, in page 13, line 35, at end insert—
'() Section 21(6), so far as it relates to any provision contained in the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957, extends to any place to which that provision extends.'.—[Mr. Cle[land.]

Schedule 1

THE ARTICLES

Amendment made: No. 35, in page 18, line 28, at end insert
`No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.'.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Schedule 2

REMEDIAL ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 19, line 6, leave out 'or repeal'.

No. 37, in page 19, line 10, at end insert—
'() A remedial order may be made so as to have the same extent as the legislation which it affects:.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Straw: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House has made a number of changes to the Bill since it was introduced eight months ago. Some of those, such as amendment No. 33, have been detailed but necessary technical improvements. Some of the amendments have raised important issues of public policy, where we have sought to respond to the concern expressed both in this House and previously in the other place.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for the way in which they have contributed to the debates. I hope that it will be acknowledged that we have sought to respond in a like way and, whenever we could, to accept the spirit and, in some cases, the detail, of amendments and, where we could not accept the precise wording, to come forward with alternative wording to meet as much of the mischief identified in those amendments as possible.
Three sets of changes have been made as a result of concerns expressed here and in the other place. The first concerns remedial orders. We continue to believe that it should be possible to amend Acts of Parliament by a remedial order so as to bring them into line with the convention rights, but we have, after listening carefully to the debates, considerably restricted the circumstances in which they can be made, and we have significantly enhanced the parliamentary opportunities for scrutiny of those orders.
We have explained that any response to a declaration of incompatibility by the courts, whether by fresh primary legislation or by a remedial order, is a matter on which the Government will propose, but it is for Parliament to dispose. One of the Bill's many strengths is that it promotes human rights while maintaining the sovereignty of Parliament and the separation of powers which underpins our constitutional arrangements.
Secondly, there is the issue of the Churches, on which we had an interesting debate some minutes ago, including an entertaining excursion into the history of the Church of Scotland. We were, for reasons that I explained, unable to accept the amendments made by the other place which would have exempted Churches from the Bill's public authority provisions in the few circumstances where they would otherwise have been regarded as public authorities. At the same time, we recognised their concern about what they saw as the Bill's potential impact on such matters as faith and doctrine. In that regard, I tabled an amendment in Committee requiring the courts to have particular regard to the rights of religious organisations to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and in so doing I believe that the Government and the House were able to go a long way towards meeting their concerns.
The third issue is that of the press. We never believed that the Bill would undermine the freedom of the press. The Strasbourg institutions attach a high value to freedom of expression, as is clear from a series of cases, including the "Spycatcher" case. Our courts will take that case law into account. But as with the Churches, we sought to meet the concerns of the press in a way which is consistent with the principles on which the Bill is based.
We did so with an amendment in Committee requiring the courts, among other things, to have particular regard to freedom of expression when they are considering granting any relief which might affect it. The amendment followed detailed discussions with the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, Lord Wakeham, and with media representatives. I think that the amendment was well received in the House and outside.
I have commented on three particular issues that have arisen from the Bill. More generally, it is clear to everyone that the Bill has significant ramifications. Its provisions will have profound implications for the conduct of all public authorities, for the interpretation of legislation and for the operation of the court system at all levels. It will be much easier for individuals to rely on their convention rights against public authorities, and I believe that they will take that opportunity.
Over time, the Bill will bring about the creation of a human rights culture in Britain. In future years, historians may regard the Bill as one of the most important measures of this Parliament. I talk about a human rights culture. One of the problems which has arisen in Britain in recent years is that people have failed to understand from where rights come. The philosopher David Selbourne has commented on the generation of an idea of dutiless rights, where people see rights as consumer products which they can take, but for nothing. The truth is that rights have to be offset by responsibilities and obligations. There can and should be no rights without responsibilities, and our responsibilities should precede our rights.
In developing that human rights culture, I want to see developed a much clearer understanding among Britain's people and institutions that rights and responsibilities have properly to be balanced—freedoms by obligations and duties.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the Home Secretary, who is always courteous in giving way. It does not follow exactly from what he has just said, but when do the Government expect to implement the Bill? When will the measure be brought into force?

Mr. Straw: May I deal with that in a few moments after my next remarks?
As the Bill nears the end of its parliamentary passage, it is right to look ahead to its implementation. Precisely because the Bill will have such a fundamental effect, we need to prepare for it thoroughly. We are providing training through the Judicial Studies Board for all courts and tribunals to enable them to deal adequately with the convention points that will come before them in case after case. We have allocated just under £5 million in addition to the normal budget of the Judicial Studies Board and associated bodies for this judicial training.
We are also ensuring that Government Departments and other public authorities are properly prepared for the obligations that the Bill places on them. They will need not only to review their legislation and practices for compatibility with the convention but to ensure that their staff are trained in an awareness of the convention rights so that those rights permeate all the decisions that they make. We need to work out how the criminal justice system can best accommodate the additional pressures that are likely to follow from the Bill.
To answer directly the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lye11), that means that there is a great deal of work to do before the Bill can be implemented. We need to carry that out in a fair, systematic, balanced and positive way. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to give a precise date for implementation. It cannot happen in the near future, and I hope that he will forgive me for being unable to give a precise date. We want to implement the Bill as soon as is feasible, but we must all recognise that we cannot do so straight away.
One exception is clause 19, which requires ministerial statements of compatibility. The clause, which is important for the presentation of Bills before the House, does not form part of the main scheme of the Bill, and could be brought into force well in advance of the main provisions. I am considering the options for implementing clause 19 with my right hon. Friend the President of the Council and others, and I hope to make an announcement as soon as possible.

Mr. Maclennan: Before the Home Secretary leaves the matter of the date of the Bill's effective operation, will he tell us more about the criteria that he will apply in determining the practicality of proceeding? I understand that there is a need for judicial training, and the Home Secretary has spoken of the Government's efforts on that, but are there any other hidden obstacles to proceeding with implementation that he might want to disclose?

Mr. Straw: I do not think that there are any other hidden obstacles—I was trying to search my brain for

secrets, but there are none. We are bringing into Scots law and English law—by which, for the avoidance of doubt, I mean also the law that applies in Wales and Northern Ireland—not only the convention, which is easily stated, as it is in the Bill, but its jurisprudence. It is crucial that we properly prepare our judicial system, including senior judges who have in many ways been living with the convention for a long time.
Often when the law is ambiguous, the courts use the convention and its jurisprudence as an aid to interpretation. However, the convention has not reached many Crown courts or county courts, and it has certainly not reached magistrates courts—it is outwith their experience. If we are not prepared and if we do not prepare those who serve in a judicial capacity, including 30,000 lay magistrates, we will find that sharp lawyers will seek to make disruptive points. We must be aware of that—we have always acknowledged it—and we must be prepared for it.
The Bill not only concerns the rights of individuals in a narrow sense, but will change our society's culture. For example, those who are charged with criminal offences have rights, and we must recognise and protect those rights, but others in society also have rights. It would be wrong to set sharp lawyers who have examined the jurisprudence against lay magistrates, justices' clerks, busy county court and Crown court judges who have not had the opportunity to do so. That would bring the Bill's implementation into disrepute. I want the process to succeed, so we need time to prepare for it.
I do not want to implicate the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) in the process, but he has been closely associated with the project, both in opposition and in government. I thank him for that contribution. He knows that the Bill is an important priority for the Government, and that there was considerable discussion about it in the joint consultative committee—of which he was a joint chairman—of the Liberal Democrat party and the Labour party. He will recognise that we must get on with the project—I know that he is on the case—but we must balance that against the need for preparation.
My next point may further reassure the right hon. Gentleman and, with a bit of luck, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire. The work of preparing for the Bill's implementation is not for the Government alone. We recognise that many outside the Government have a keen interest in how the Bill is implemented and want to contribute to its success. We draw on their expertise, as we did in opposition, and we take account of their concerns.
As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), said earlier, I have decided to establish a task force to assist the Government in the preparations for implementation.
The task force will be chaired by my noble Friend the Lord Williams of Mostyn and will include my hon. Friends the Solicitor-General and the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department. The membership will also include those non-governmental organisations which have made extremely valuable contributions to the project and have continued to offer their advice as the Bill has proceeded through Parliament. They will include Francesca Klug, from the Human Rights Incorporation


Project; Anne Owers, from Justice; Andrew Puddephatt, from Charter 88; Sarah Spencer, from the Institute for Public Policy Research; Veena Vasista, from the 1990 Trust; and John Wadham from Liberty.
The task force will help us to create the human rights culture to which I referred. Its tasks will include maintaining a dialogue between the Government and non-governmental organisations on the readiness of Departments, other public authorities and the legal profession for implementation and on its timing; working together to heighten public awareness of the Bill relating to responsibilities as well as rights; providing training opportunities for public authorities outside Government, and co-operating with other organisations in disseminating awareness, particularly among young people, of the rights and responsibilities inherent in the convention.
We are preparing guidance on the Bill which is designed to assist Government Departments and others, and I expect the task force to take a keen interest in that.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the abolition of the death penalty take place soon, or does it depend on the deliberations of the task force?

Mr. Straw: That will take place on Royal Assent. It is a simple, straightforward and important matter. We do not have to wait a relatively long time before it comes into force.
I hope that the task force will be able to have its first meeting in the near future and will continue to meet regularly, at least until the Bill is fully implemented. It will be of great practical use. I am grateful to those who have accepted the invitation to serve on the task force, and I look forward to it starting its work.
I have looked to the future of the Bill because, with this Bill more than any other, the word is not the deed. We have started the business of introducing a formal statement of human rights into our law. That will not be completed until the European convention on human rights is embedded in our jurisprudence. Our immediate task is to complete our consideration of the Bill before it finally returns to another place.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I welcome the Home Secretary's explanation of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has to be abroad today, but he has been following and taking a close interest in the Bill and its development.
The Home Secretary is right to emphasise that rights also involve responsibilities. The short speech by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) brought home to those who were in the Chamber the extraordinary reach that the Bill is likely to have. A great many lawyers will look at every aspect of it and seek to stretch it as far as possible.
In respect of a human rights culture, it is important to stress that a human right given to one individual may adversely affect the rights of other individuals. It is important that the Bill be implemented in a way that balances the rights of all citizens fairly, or there will be some strange results.
The Home Secretary was also right to say—I may not quote him quite correctly—that we do not know exactly where this legislation will lead us. When we acceded to the European convention in 1951, few people would have expected some of its far-reaching effects over the past 47 years. The decisions by the Strasbourg Court have not necessarily been radical, but their effects have often been more radical than the decisions themselves. For example, it was decided that parents could choose the type of discipline to be imposed on their children in school, which had the radical effect of removing what many people regard as old-fashioned systems of discipline. Nobody would have expected that to happen at the outset.
We must be careful that cases brought before our courts do not lead to changes in our society that would not have the support of this House and of the country through its elected representatives. That is why it is extremely important that, when remedial orders are made, the House should have the fullest opportunity to consider them.
The Home Secretary said that Governments propose and Parliaments dispose. It is important that that phrase should be profound as well as elegant, because if we were to use too much of the fast-track procedure, the Government would be proposing and Parliament would have little option but to dispose. The history of this Bill has shown that real improvements have been made during its proceedings.
Although we may not have achieved all that we sought to achieve through remedial orders, we are grateful for the clear explanation by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), that "compelling reasons" means compelling reasons, and that the Government will consider it necessary or proper to use the fast-track procedure only in a narrow band of cases.
I am also grateful that the Home Secretary made it clear that the Bill is not meant to create a substitute written constitution for this country. It is simply to ensure that our law is kept in line with Strasbourg law so that cases are dealt with more swiftly, easily and effectively. I continue to hope that, while there will be no formal right of appeal—there could not be—for Government and public bodies to Strasbourg, ways will be found to enable the public to know when the Government or a public body are deeply concerned that a decision of our courts at the highest level is wrong. They should know that an effective method is available to drive the matter on to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and that the ultimate determination will be in accordance with the decision of our highest judiciary. That judgment will therefore be binding not only on the citizens of this country, but on those of every other member state of the Council of Europe.
I believe profoundly in the European convention on human rights, but it is a backstop. It must always be remembered that the convention was created after the war to prevent some dreadful things from ever happening again, and it should not start to reach into the nooks and crannies of the private lives of the citizens of these 30 or 40 countries. I hope that the courts will bear that in mind, and that reading the debates will encourage people to do that.
Although we have opposed aspects of the Bill, we now wish it well and hope that it will be implemented effectively, to the benefit of the citizenry as a whole.

Mr. Maclennan: I also express my gratitude to the Home Secretary for the way in which he has handled the Bill—his openness to suggestions, and his diligence in pursuing arguments and proffering explanations. I believe that the Bill has benefited from the deliberations of Parliament, and that cannot be said of all our legislative activity.
For me, the Bill is something of a landmark in personal terms. Fifteen years ago, in December 1983, I introduced a Bill that enjoyed a great deal of support—not, alas, from any of the current members of the Labour Cabinet. Indeed, their absence was noted when the matter was brought before the House again in 1987, by Sir Edward Gardner, from the Conservative Benches. Only 15 Labour Members supported the proposal.
It has been a long haul to get to this point, and it is therefore a matter of great satisfaction that there has been such a clear movement of opinion—a movement that is, I believe, reflected in the judiciary. When one thinks of the arguments that were made 10 years ago about how such a measure might politicise the judges, and how that was considered to be a baffling obstacle to the reforms that are here encompassed, one can take great satisfaction from what has happened.
I pay particular tribute to my noble and learned Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who has campaigned for even longer, and whose individual contribution to the debates is probably without parallel.

Mr. Straw: I should like to be associated with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about Lord Lester.

Mr. Maclennan: My noble and learned Friend will be most grateful, as will my personal friend, David Selbourne, the philosopher, from whose home I returned on Saturday to read the Home Secretary's remarks about dutiless rights. They were most appositely chosen, for it is true not only that obligations balance rights, but that rights cannot be secured without duties being observed. Too often, that has been lost sight of.
A couple of questions remain, which are not entirely clear to me and which may not become clear for some time, about the impact of the Government's decision on implementation. I am grateful for what the Home Secretary has said about the task force on implementation. Some of the work that he proposes to assign to it might have been undertaken by a human rights commission, and he is clearly seeking voluntary help to fulfil some of the necessary groundwork. I hope that there will be urgency in implementation.
I am not entirely satisfied that these matters can be handled effectively by our courts until the matter has come before them. It is prudent not to rush into instant implementation, and thereby run the risk of discrediting the process. However, that is not a reason for long delay. It is clear from what the Home Secretary said in reply to my intervention that he shares that view.
Subordinate legislatures, to which power is being decentralised, could be in some difficulty if the Bill is not implemented. The Home Secretary will be aware that provisions in the Northern Ireland Bill, the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Act 1998 require legislative proposals to be compatible with convention rights as set out in this Bill. It would be unfortunate if legislative

issues arose and there were some question as to whether the proposals of the three bodies concerned were incompatible with the Bill, and that could not be resolved because the Government had not given effect to this Bill.

Mr. Straw: As I explained earlier, it is my intention to bring clause 19 into force as soon as possible, and well before the rest of the Bill. Clause 19 requires Ministers, when they present a Bill, to give a clear statement on whether they believe, on the basis of good advice, that the Bill is compatible with the convention. That provision, as it affects the United Kingdom Parliament, will come into force earlier than the provisions of the Scotland Bill, the Government of Wales Act and the Northern Ireland Bill, and should have an impact on those bodies.
The second point is that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. An intervention should be brief. The right hon. Gentleman's second point should be dealt with in the winding-up speech.

Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his intervention. He has gone some way to removing my concern, which flowed from clause 28 of the Scotland Bill. That provides that the Scottish Parliament should have legislative competence only in respect of matters for which there is no incompatibility with convention rights. I am greatly relieved if the declaration of a Minister is sufficient to remove that condition, and if that will be triggered by the earlier implementation of clause 19.
I do not want to conclude my contribution to the debate on a minor, perhaps querulous, note. The issues that are covered by the Bill are of historic importance. Although the Minister has said that the Government do not intend to take a step towards establishing a written constitution, I do not doubt that that is, in fact, what is happening.
In drafting the Bill, the Government have been extremely careful to avoid the possibility of judges striking down the legislation of Parliament, on the ground that it would fall foul of fundamental law. That is understandable in the light of the current attitude of judges, who would not altogether welcome such a power. There can be no doubt, however, that judges have changed their minds to the extent that they broadly support this measure. I anticipate that, as they have inspired confidence that they would use the power judiciously, they will feel less reluctant to take the greater responsibility of deciding that Parliament has gone beyond the accepted view of people, as expressed in a written constitution. I do not consider that an embarrassing prospect; indeed, I think that many would regard it as highly desirable.
I also think that—as the Minister emphasised—the Government have sought to secure what they describe as the sovereignty of Parliament. Earlier, I expressed doubt about whether that was necessary or even desirable: I felt that the people were sovereign, and that their views could be expressed outside the House.

Mr. Straw: That is a Scottish point.

Mr. Maclennan: Indeed. It has always been understood by the Scottish courts that that is the position. However, such a philosophical argument, or


discussion, is not appropriate in this context. In this Third Reading debate, we are discussing what is in the Bill, and what is in the Bill is highly satisfactory. I believe that it will reinforce protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of our people, that it will not lead to a landslide of litigation, and that it will provide valuable support to ensure that those fundamental rights and freedoms are sustained, as all who have spoken today wish them to be.

Fiona Mactaggart: The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) referred to what is in the Bill. It may seem odd, on Third Reading, to deal with what is not in a Bill, especially given that, during today's debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should not talk about what is not in the Bill, because the purpose of Third Reading is to talk about what is in the Bill.

Fiona Mactaggart: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Home Secretary has shown a willingness to take on the issues that have been raised, and to amend the Bill. It has therefore become more comprehensive, and deals more effectively with Labour's manifesto promise to bring rights home. It may not be able to fulfil that promise completely, owing to what the Home Secretary, on Second Reading, described as a fine balance. It has not incorporated article 13 of the convention.
It is said that the existence of the Bill creates an article 13 right. Interestingly, subsequent case law may suggest that article 13 constitutes a separate right, which can be considered separately. Someone whose human rights are not delivered by the institutions of government may have the right to have that properly investigated. In the Aydin case, the inability of the Turkish authorities effectively to use their power to visit the scene of the incident—this was following a rape—to summon witnesses and to call forensic evidence was queried. For example, no officers had been questioned in the critical initial stages of the investigation. I expect that that criticism of the lack of a domestic remedy might sound familiar to the parents of Stephen Lawrence.
I believe that we can deliver a domestic remedy within the framework of the Bill as it is. I hope that the Home Secretary, in his usual approach of finding solutions—the task force that he has incorporated to work with him on this will do that effectively—will ensure that, in practice, that domestic remedy is delivered.
We have done some radical things during this Bill. To the Government's surprise, we have incorporated protocol 6. That was an important step. In the White Paper that preceded the Bill, the Government announced their intention to introduce legislation that would mean that our laws were compatible with protocol 7, so that we could incorporate it. I urge a similar approach to be taken on the fourth protocol.
We have already made announcements—there was a series of announcements during the summer—about the rights of British dependent territory citizens. If we extended their right to reside in the UK, some of the difficulties in ratifying the fourth protocol would be avoided, but what we have done in the Bill so far has consequences.
The committee that—even though we have not approved the present setting up of a commission to establish the work of the Bill—has been envisaged in Ministers' statements should start work early on. It could assist Ministers in the business of making clause 19 statements; it would be good if that happened early on. I would be interested if the Home Secretary could respond to that point. However, I hope that the committee will also be able to look at the issues of ratifying the protocols that remain unratified because that is part of the unfinished business. If we do that, we shall do a better job of bringing rights home.

Mr. Straw: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly to the points that have been made in the debate.
First, I thank the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) for the trust of his remarks. I had hoped that, during the passage of the Bill, it might be possible to deal with matters in a way that did ensure that there was some consensus behind it. I am pleased that it looks as though that may be the case.
Of course I understand that the official Opposition—it is not their right, but their duty, to express different views—have reservations about aspects of the Bill. Its implementation needs to be not only prepared carefully, but monitored with great care.
Earlier in the debates, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred to our intention, which we had flagged up in the White Paper, to establish, or to propose the establishment of, a parliamentary Committee on human rights—it is a matter for Parliament, not for us, to determine—to monitor progress in implementing the Act and the way in which it develops and, where appropriate, to make recommendations to Parliament for changes that may be needed.
I should like also to thank the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) for his particularly generous remarks about me. I am grateful to him for those. As I said before, I am grateful not only for the co-operation but for the inspiration that he and his colleagues have provided. He was right to say that some of us have been later converts to the cause than he was. I should have taken more notice of the views of my former head of chambers, Sir Edward Gardner, when he was promoting his Human Rights Bill in 1987. He was a distinguished man, and I should have listened to him. Nevertheless, we have got there in the end.
Those of us who know Lord Lester know him to be indefatigable in pursuit of incorporation of the European convention on human rights. Although he is sometimes indefatigable to the point of exhausting his friends and colleagues, that only adds to our admiration of him. He has worked extremely hard on the issue and the Bill's passage, and he deserves our collective thanks.
I should deal with the points made on Scottish and Welsh incorporation of the convention. The Government's intention is that implementation will occur on the same date for all constituent parts of the United Kingdom. On the obligation of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure either that their legislation is compatible with the convention or that, if it is not, they state that it is not, as I said earlier—in an over-long intervention—the


Government's intention is that the obligation will not apply to those institutions before it applies to the House and to the other place. I should add that, in practice, both this Government and the previous Government have observed an obligation to attempt to ensure that Government legislation is compatible with the convention, albeit currently such compatibility can be tested only at Strasbourg and not in United Kingdom courts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) asked a question about article 13. Article 13 states:
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.
Although article 13 mentions a national authority, the truth is that it is there to provide a remedy for the international Court at Strasbourg. For that reason, the Government thought that it would be inappropriate to include article 13 in the Bill to incorporate the principal operational parts of the convention that provide substantive rights.
English law and Scots law have been imaginative and innovative in developing new remedies. As proof of that, one has only to consider development of the idea of judicial review, which—from an almost standing start—has developed into a rather large industry.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Home Office knows all about that.

Mr. Straw: That is true. However, we end up being judicially reviewed more regularly than some other Departments because of the nature of our business. It is right that we should be reviewed more regularly, as we are daily dealing with crucial issues of the liberty of the subject. I personally have no difficulty about the fact that the quasi-judicial decisions that I have to make—like the decisions that the former Attorney-General had to make—have to be made with very clear application of the law and judicial review.
Judicial review and many other remedies have been developed, and the Government believe that the courts will be imaginative in developing other remedies if they are needed. If—as I do not think will happen—there turns out to be some gap in the remedies, the safeguard is that it will be possible for litigants to go to Strasbourg, where article 13 will arise.
I do not want to go into too much detail about the Turkish case, except to say that it involved the most extraordinary allegations of failure against the Turkish

police, failure on a scale that no one could conceive would apply in this country. The case involved the killing of civilian by a Turkish police officer and the almost total and wilful failure of the Turkish authorities to investigate. It is impossible to conceive of such a circumstance arising in this country. We considered the matter carefully but do not believe that we lose anything by the omission of article 13. Indeed, we think that there could be problems if we included it.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I apologise to the Home Secretary for intervening at the last gasp, but I do so on a narrow point that the Plymouth Brethren have asked me to put to him. The Plymouth Brethren occasionally have to exclude members, and they want a reassurance that, under clause 6, they will not be considered "a public authority". The Home Secretary kindly gave that reassurance in a letter to me on 25 June, but the Brethren would be grateful if he could confirm it on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Straw: Yes, I can. I am smiling because I have very good relations with the Exclusive Brethren in my constituency

Mr. Bob Russell: That is the old brethren.

Mr. Straw: The old Labour Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) said that from a sedentary position.
In the debate on 20 May this year, I stated:
the regulation of divine worship"—
and I mean regulation—
the administration of the sacrament, admission to Church membership or to the priesthood"—
obviously, the term "admission" covers non-admission and exclusion—
are, in our judgment, all private matters."—[Official Report, 20 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 1015.]
It could not conceivably be asserted that, when it comes to questions of discipline, the Plymouth Brethren or the Exclusive Brethren are standing in the place of the state. I am therefore happy to give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks.
We have had a very interesting debate. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed, and I look forward to the Bill receiving its Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

St. Helena

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Bob Russell: The people—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. An hon. Member is addressing the House. Other hon. Members should leave the Chamber quietly.

Mr. Russell: The people of the island of St. Helena are not asking for anything new; they simply want restored to them the status which they enjoyed until it was shamefully removed by the previous Government under the British Nationality Act 1981. With citizens of other British dependent territories, they had the door slammed in their faces. They had their full British citizenship taken away, and found that they were no longer welcome as full members of the British family. Loyalty to the Crown and to Britain counted for nothing. There were rejected in a cynical move which embraced them and others from a handful of small British communities in various parts of the world in order to justify the introduction of legislation to stop people from Hong Kong coming to Britain.
St. Helenians have always and only been British. They have British nationality but not full citizenship, which makes them second-class citizens. The islanders seek full British citizenship status, a restoration of their ancient rights granted by the British Crown. I look to the present Government to put right the wrong of a previous Government and end the years of rejection and dejection experienced by the Saints, as residents of St. Helena are generally known.
The British dependent territories have a combined population of around 160,000, but tonight I shall confine my comments to the plight of those who reside on St. Helena. The island's entire population of some 5,500 could be accommodated in Colchester United's football stadium, with room to spare.
Not all the 13 populated territories seek what St. Helena is asking. I understand that some are content with their current status. I hope that tonight the Minister will give a commitment that, sooner rather than later, and certainly in time for the new millennium, the Saints will be able to rejoice in the restoration of their previous status of full British citizenship.
The door is currently locked. Recent speculation that perhaps the present Government are to open it is welcome, but is it true? It is not enough simply to say that the key has been found. The door needs to be unlocked and swung wide for the Saints to be invited back to where they rightly belong, to the status they had until 17 years ago—not so much marching in, but rather as members being welcomed back into the British family home whenever they are this way.
Is it seriously suggested, regardless of the previous Government's motives, that the restoration of full British citizenship to 5,500 residents of the island of St. Helena will somehow create difficulties for Britain? It is an insult and nonsense even to contemplate a single practical difficulty or justification to maintain the outrage that has existed since 1981.
I hope that the Minister will find her previous duty as Prisons Minister to be of help in considering releasing the Saints from the sentence of exile imposed on them by the Thatcher Government. She will, of course, be aware that Napoleon's exile is St. Helena's most historic claim to fame: while Napoleon would dearly have loved to leave the island for good, the vast majority of today's island residents do not wish permanently to leave their home in the south Atlantic, but seek simply the right to regain their status as full British citizens so that they can freely travel to Britain and return.
The St. Helena Government representative in London, Mrs. Catherine Hopkins, told the Foreign Affairs Committee on 18 November last year:
From St. Helena's point of view, I doubt very much whether very many Saints would want to come to take up permanent residence in the United Kingdom. We regard St. Helena as home and the young people of the island have made it quite clear that they wish to see the island develop rather than coming to England. They would like access, they would like the ability to move freely.
She added:
The idea that 5,500 St. Helenians are going to uproot themselves and come to Britain, where they would be very easily absorbed into the community is just ludicrous. There is no way it would happen.
The vessel RMS St. Helena is currently moored at Cardiff, and tomorrow evening it makes its somewhat infrequent sailing from the UK to the island. It would be nice if the captain could take a message of hope with him from tonight's debate.
To continue with the maritime theme, by one of those happy coincidences, today is Trafalgar day. Admiral Nelson was renowned for turning his blind eye. For 17 years, the British Government have been guilty of a double Nelson—closing their eyes and ears to the people of St. Helena. The time has come for Britain to stop wrestling with its conscience, and I look to the present Government to give St. Helena a fair break.
Napoleon would no doubt be amused that today a citizen of France has easier access to Britain than do residents of the British dependent territory of St. Helena. St. Helena is not the only island in the south Atlantic with British roots. Indeed, had it been invaded by Argentina as the Falkland Islands were in 1982, presumably it too would have had the British Nationality Act 1981 amended to release its residents from their current second-class status. They would also have benefited from massive sums of British Government aid, as the Falkland islanders have for almost two decades. St. Helena's only ship, the RMS St. Helena, was called in to support Britain in the Falklands conflict, with Saints volunteering to be part of the crew.
Britain has a moral duty to the island of St. Helena. In fairness, aid is given, but the amount is nothing like that given to the Falklands, which has a population less than half that of St. Helena—but then, St. Helena does not have oil.
I first took a deep interest in St. Helena—a small island with an area of just 47 square miles, 4,400 miles from Britain and situated midway between Africa and South America—when a constituent wrote to me. His grandfather was born on the island. Perhaps a more fitting reason for the strong links being established between Colchester and the island is that the patron saint of Colchester is St. Helena—same spelling, but different pronunciation. One of the town's secondary schools,


which I and my family attended, is called St. Helena, as is the town's hospice. There is a statue of St. Helena on top of the town hall tower—the highest building on the skyline. St. Helena is a saint from Roman times, and Britain's first Roman capital was Colchester.
In June this year, a delegation of legislative councillors from St. Helena was welcomed to Colchester by the mayor. The official visit included a tour of St. Helena school and local craft workshops, which the Saints see as the type of business activity they need to help the island's economy. From January last year until July this year, a Colchester-based company, International Management Consultants Ltd., assisted the Government of St. Helena with its accounting systems and related matters. The current bishop of St. Helena has a sister who lives in a north Essex village not far from Colchester. I am aware of contacts between individual residents of Colchester and islanders. There are high hopes of establishing links between the island and St. Helena school.
The island of St. Helena was discovered by the Portuguese on 21 May 1502—St. Helena day. The English followed in 1588, but not until 1658 was it colonised, becoming a Crown colony in 1834. Britain settled St. Helena with British people, and brought in other ethnic groups who were integrated into the British community. The local population has no nationality other than British. Rights to full British citizenship were confirmed by royal charter in 1673. Islanders enjoyed those rights for more than three centuries, but the British Nationality Act 1981 removed them, making the islanders second-class citizens, and virtual prisoners on their own island.
I call on the Minister to give a pledge that steps to restore full British citizenship will begin without further delay, putting right a wrong that has caused so much unhappiness to the islanders for the best part of two decades. In the past year or so, the Foreign Affairs Committee has considered the plight of St. Helena as part of its dependent territories review interim report. A private Member's Bill to restore citizenship rights was presented by the Earl of Iveagh in the House of Lords. In this House, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) proposed a British Nationality (St. Helena) Bill, but it was dropped in April for reasons that perhaps the Minister can explain.
We have been promised a White Paper for months on the policy towards British overseas territories. That will cover more than just St. Helena, whose unique case demands an urgent and unique response. For England's lost county, the status quo is not an option. Something must be done. St. Helenians have always been British. They are still British, and they only want the British Government to acknowledge that fact by restoring their birthright of full British citizenship.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) on securing this Adjournment debate, and on his choice of subject. He referred to my previous ministerial portfolio. Somewhat to my surprise, I find that, for my first debate as a Minister in the Foreign Office with responsibility for Europe, I am responding to a debate on St. Helena. I should convey to the House the apologies of the Minister of State, Foreign and

Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who is abroad at the moment but to whom I shall report and with whom I shall discuss this debate.
Probably all of us who are present will have appreciated the comments of the hon. Member for Colchester about the connections that he, his family, his constituency and his town have with St. Helena. I wish him success in establishing further links between his area and the island.
In some ways, this debate is timely, because the comments of the hon. Member for Colchester can be very much taken into account in the overseas territories review. In another sense, however, it is perhaps not as timely. As he will realise, I am not in a position to give absolute answers to his questions, simply because the decision was taken to conduct a review of overseas territories, produce a White Paper, and come up with proposals, which we seek to do as soon as possible.
The hon. Member will be aware, too, that we are discussing the constitution of St. Helena with its legislative council. We must await the outcome of those discussions and other studies, such as the transport access study concerning St. Helena. Taken together, we hope that they will put us in a position to give the people of St. Helena a future to look forward to.
As the hon. Member for Colchester pointed out, St. Helena is a tiny island of 47 square miles lying in the south Atlantic, about 1,200 miles from Africa. It is one of the oldest and most remote of our overseas territories. It has certainly been described as a beautiful island. I am sorry not to have had the opportunity to visit it, but in the past, and in preparation for the debate, I have spoken to people who have been there and who follow events there very closely. From what I have been told, there can be no doubt about St. Helena's special place in the family of our overseas territories, each of which has a unique character.
One hardship that St. Helena has had to face is the fact that it has few natural resources. Agriculture, fishing and a growing tourism-related industry are the main activities in the private sector. The role of the public sector—largely Government—is still considerable. The economy of St. Helena continues to rely on British aid for the bulk of new investment and to help balance the Government's revenue budget. That background will be well known not only to the hon. Member for Colchester but to other hon. Members who I know follow the affairs of St. Helena. It certainly affects all decisions about the island and, indeed, the status of its people.
Towards the end of last year, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced that he would set up a review of British dependent territories in order to take a fresh look at our relations with them. In his speech to the Dependent Territories Association on 4 February, he announced some broad interim findings. Above all, he offered the dependent territories a new, modern, secure and lasting partnership with Britain. He emphasised the importance of the territories to us, and the fact that we take pride in the strong historic links—to which the hon. Member for Colchester referred—that have led to a unique family bond which matters to both sides.
Britain remains committed to those sovereign territories that wish to retain their link with us, but the relationship needs to be brought up to date to reflect the idea of partnership in the modern world. One measure that my right hon. Friend took to reflect that change was to alter


the way in which the territories were to be referred to. They are now to be known by the more appropriate title of UK overseas territories.
My right hon. Friend also announced that, as part of the new framework for partnership, my noble Friend Baroness Symons would become the first Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister with responsibility for the UK overseas territories. Furthermore, to improve dialogue and understanding between Britain and the overseas territories, an annual UK overseas territories council will be established to provide a forum for Chief Ministers and councillors to raise their concerns directly with the Minister. I know that they feel strongly about such access.
Those and other aspects of the review will be reflected in the White Paper that we shall lay before Parliament. It will cover a range of issues relevant to the overseas territories, and will give details of the partnership that we wish to promote. It will set out ideas for promoting the good governance of the territories, and address constitutional and human rights issues. It will also consider ways of accelerating sustainable development in economic terms and ensuring a sustainable environment, and how to promote the economic prosperity of the UK overseas territories within internationally accepted standards of financial regulation.
The House may wish to know that the elected members of the St. Helena legislative council wrote to the Secretary of State in February congratulating him on his speech to the Dependent Territories Association conference. They welcomed the new partnership and the appointment of Baroness Symons as the Minister with special responsibility. I hope that they will find the White Paper, describing in full the modernised partnership that we want to create and the action needed to take to create it, acceptable, and that they will be content with the blueprint for the future that it sets out.

Mr. Peter Bradley: I do not seek to anticipate the proposals that the White Paper will make, but does the Minister at least accept that the deprivation of the right to citizenship by the previous Government in 1981 was a callous and insensitive act, which not only slighted the people of St. Helena but critically disadvantaged them?

Ms Quin: I understand that the citizens of St. Helena expressed their great disappointment, but it is important to find a way forward that both recognises their unique position and considers the position of overseas territories in general, to find something that works for the future, with which they will feel happy.

Mr. David Heath: I welcome the hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box in her new role. Does she accept that there is a difference between the position of St. Helena and its dependencies in terms of citizenship, and that of the other overseas territories, which involves issues of reciprocity that do not apply to St. Helena? Secondly, will she tell us when the White Paper will be produced, as it is already overdue?

Ms Quin: There are other territories to which, as in the case of St. Helena, issues of reciprocity do not apply. I do

not think that the island is unique in that respect. As for the timing of the White Paper, we hope to be able to publish it by the end of the year, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee from the Dispatch Box tonight. Given that we are talking about a number of overseas territories, I hope that he will appreciate that we want to ensure that we produce a White Paper that addresses all the issues concerning all the territories, and provides a basis on which we can build for the future.
I know that hon. Members have raised such issues in past debates, and some of those debates were rightly mentioned by the hon. Member for Colchester. I certainly accept that the reception of the White Paper in St. Helena will depend largely on how it tackles the issue of the St. Helenians' claim to British citizenship. However, the issue of British citizenship is a complex one for the UK overseas territories. We are reviewing the appropriateness of the status to see whether changes are needed.
A number of Government Departments are involved—it is not simply a Foreign and Commonwealth Office matter. Alteration of the status has implications which Departments need to consider. The Government are sympathetic to the concerns of St. Helena on the issue, and we have told the House so several times in the past. We have not changed our attitude in that respect.
I would like to take this occasion to say a few words about how we are trying to address the economic status of St. Helena—an issue every bit as important to the inhabitants. In 1996, the St. Helena Government conducted widespread consultations, which led to the compilation and publication of a strategic review. This set out a range of policies and goals to deliver the St. Helena vision of a prosperous, peaceful and democratic society for all, achieved through sustainable economic, environmental and social development, leading to a healthy, and eventually financially independent, island.
Incidentally, I accept the point that the hon. Member for Colchester made—that, in general, people are not seeking to leave their home territories. People want to feel secure and at ease in their home land, and I accept that the citizenship argument is not motivated by those concerns. I also accept that, in terms of their ability to travel, the inhabitants of St. Helena welcome the argument.
The strategic review formed the basis of the St. Helena Government aid submission, on which negotiations took place between the St. Helena and UK Governments in 1996. These negotiations led to agreement on a country policy plan. This was a major step forward in the relationship between the British and St. Helena Governments, and underlined the importance of a partnership in which the members of the legislative council have a major role and responsibility.
The UK Government agreed to make available more than £26 million for the three years from April 1997 to March 2000. The country policy plan is monitored regularly to see that it is on track, and to make any adjustments needed. A review of the country policy plan took place in January this year, and concluded that considerable progress had been made. Aid funds for the second year were therefore authorised.
Another review is expected to take place in December. It will look at the extent to which the structural adjustment programme agreed between the two Governments is being followed. Decisions on aid support for the public sector investment programme, which assists the St. Helena


Government with infrastructure development and renewal, will be taken in the light of the evaluation. The country policy plan has met the essential need to have a viable development strategy for the island's future.
The plan recognised that there was an immediate need to improve the efficiency of the public sector. It acknowledged that private sector development was necessary to stimulate St Helena's economy and to help resolve the unemployment problem. Much progress has been made. Attempts are being made to find overseas markets for products such as honey and beauty products, and to develop coffee production on the island. However, more needs to be done.
One area in which I hope we shall see progress is in complying with the aid agreement, whereby consumers of the enhanced infrastructure facilities—for example, water—contribute to the full cost recovery of that capital expenditure. The money thus generated can then be used under social services provision to target the most needy in the community and enable them to pay their bills.
In July 1998, the St. Helena Government signed an agreement with Argos Ltd., a British-Falkland Islands fisheries company. From the beginning of next year, the company will invest in a range of shore-based facilities, including a freezing and processing plant which will offer employment opportunities for a number of St. Helenians. It will process the catch of St. Helena fishermen as well as that of the company's vessels.
Other projects that will help the people of St. Helena include a management scheme to enable farmers to grow fruit commercially once again, road improvements, and the improvement of water quality.
Technical co-operation funds from the Department for International Development are paying for 24 key technical and administrative staff on the island. Those funds also pay for a number of St. Helenians per year to come to the United Kingdom to study at colleges and universities.
The St. Helena Development Agency was established to promote the private sector. It provides financial services, business advice and training. More than 100 jobs have been created or sustained by the agency in the past year.
As I said, St. Helena has few resources except its people. We and the St. Helena Government have taken steps to ensure that as many as possible of them can develop their talents and lead productive lives. Some 60 St. Helenians are in the UK under the training and work experience scheme. Others have been recruited into the British armed forces. Not only do those schemes teach valuable skills: they also give schoolchildren on the island aims to work for, which is important.
The Cheltenham and Gloucester college of higher education has a contract with the Department for International Development to provide educational services to St. Helena and to arrange training in the UK for its teachers and students. With the help of the college, schools on the island are preparing to implement the UK national curriculum in English, maths and science. A scheme was also agreed to improve vocational training on St. Helena. All those measures are valuable ways in which the status of St. Helena's work force can be improved.
We have also taken some direct measures to minimise unemployment and increase incomes. New work permit arrangements announced by the Minister of State in

December 1997 allow 30 people per year to come to the United Kingdom to work for up to three years accompanied by their dependants. A further 700 St. Helenians work on Ascension island, and about 300 have found work in the Falkland islands.
Offshore employment has helped to achieve a reduction in unemployment, as have measures taken by the St. Helena Government, for which I pay them credit. Offshore employment has also produced a significant flow of remittance income, which in turn has helped to improve and expand the private sector housing sector. However, offshore employment is not always a one-way benefit, and it can create problems by exacerbating serious shortages of skilled labour in St. Helena, particularly in teaching, nursing and the police force. A task force has been formed by the St. Helena Government to find solutions to that problem.
A major problem affecting St. Helena is the difficulty of communications with the rest of the world. I remember reading the debate in another place about St. Helena, in which a former Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs talked of having dispatched one of his Ministers there, and of not seeing him for several weeks thereafter. He was surprised, but when he looked into the distances involved and how one gets there, he could well understand why that was the case.
There is no airport on St. Helena. Regular access is provided by RMS St. Helena—a cargo and passenger vessel, owned by the St. Helena Government and operated by Curnow Shipping Ltd., based in Falmouth. That ship offers a scheduled service between St. Helena, Ascension, the United Kingdom and Cape Town, and it is subsidised by the Department for International Development by about £1.3 million each year.
As I said in my initial response to the hon. Gentleman, an access study to review ways of tackling the problem was announced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development in December 1997. That study started on St. Helena, and will be followed up in the United Kingdom. Its terms of reference will include all forms of transport and the feasibility of an airport.
The tourist infrastructure on St. Helena is still underdeveloped. A director of tourism was appointed last year, and she has developed good contacts, particularly in South Africa. Yachts travelling across the Atlantic have been encouraged to stop in St. Helena, and a yacht race—the Governor's cup—is organised every other year with the Cape Town sailing club. The next race is in December, when I understand that a yacht will, for the first time, be crewed by St. Helenians. We wish them and the other participants well.
I conclude with the words used by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the Dependent Territories Association in February. We will enter into a partnership with the overseas territories based on mutual trust and respect. We already have a firm basis from the past, founded on centuries of shared history. Together we face a new millennium, and together we will carry forward the relationship on a more modern basis.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Ten o'clock.